tv After Words with Sharyl Attkisson CSPAN July 23, 2017 9:03pm-10:02pm EDT
>> you've had a remarkable media career i've covered for the post and somewhat extensively throughout the years. why don't you give us some words about where you've been and where you are now and how it relates to the smear and/or previous books that have some interesting material as well. >> years of local news and cnn for three years and then cbs new york international based in new york and i also work for pbs simultaneously cbs for over 20 years and saw and talked to my colleagues that the news organizations a fairly dramatic shift in the past two years towards the control of the narratives on the news.
i continue with a sneer how they are operatives as well as get their nose and the tenants the organizations have an influence with all the images that cross the path. >> over the years you've compiled quite a list of anecdotes about your life and corporate television news. and one of the things i chuckled about was for writing about the situation in 1998 i believe you talk about cbs news. the white house got a tip or maybe it was something more sinister. is it a tale for journalists to be careful? >> guest: i think so. i think legitimate information can be had by newsmakers and we
shouldn't turn off our nose out them but you have to be careful about how you check it out before you report it. it's about the bill clinton and monica lewinsky affair and at one point the white house, and this is a story as it was told by the time the white house wanted to have a narrative but we didn't get to know the full story that they were going to float this idea that the president did kiss her but that was all, it was just a kiss and they wanted to see if that would do enough two may be pleased the public. so we recorded that on the news based on an anonymous source. they decided it must not have been, then publicly they started denying that was the case said they were the ones that planted the story. >> and if they did that perfectly possibly because of the source.
>> and i remember saying to the white house people when they helpful down the river because their storthe story was called y the same people who planted it. >> down to the identity warning. and i said why don't you just tell what happened and they say we have to protect our source. but that's not a real source if they planted something incorre incorrect. i covered the media and get week this sort all the time.
the preferences of little peop people. the point you were making was that there are some dramatic moments that you account in the theater chief or someone way up. it was distributed throughout the country in the sinclair stations and you didn't encounter any of that sort of control >> guest: i didn't necessarily work in the business ever again because i didn't see a space based on my friends and contacts that i could go and do the kind of reporting that i expected to do and die wit that i would be unfettered so this came up out
of the blue. the editorial process of the ethics review like at cbs which was voluntary by the way. here we have no editorial interference trying to shape the stories, nothing like cbs at the end. they told her what they wanted to say and what the facts are. >> host: jerry decided to some new york executives at sinclair made access for coverage. have you taken that up with any of the higher-ups and management? >> guest: i didn't know anything about it. i know from what i've read i
can't get it wrong because they misinterpreted someone else's reporting and misinterpreted and apologized for it. it's b i know on our show we ofr opportunities for donald trump and bernie sanders, hillary clinton in fact -- there is a constant dialogue going on about how bout this city and the city so we never did get an interview but we offer all of them opportunities including other candidates i didn't just name. >> host: how many stations? >> guest: broadcast to 43 million households area i think it's maybe 150 stations, something like that.
>> host: so that isn't a bad pitch but you have this sort of line to the way other stations don't. >> guest: yes i've seen some examples when we go to the members of congress are for democrats and republicans sometimes they will say you have two stations in my market and they want to be seen and heard, they like the idea of being seen and heard. >> host: getting to the smear, one of the things reading the book and researching a little bit is they spike in the 30s and then they go way up and they are pretty high now but it tailed off a little but according to this grasp. i know you get into the history of little bits in your book.
why 2017 is the smear tactics worse than ever, are they about the same as where they were for your entire career? >> guest: they've grown more sophisticated and broader. we didn't know we woul would enp here in 2017 but knowing we were headed in the general direction because the proliferation of social media and internet tools that make opportunities for the artists as we talk about in the book. they get the narratives out and affairs organized activities and organized industry in washington, d.c. that have studied this and what works and doesn't work and i think it all came into play like never before. i started the book in the 2016 campaign but i think that's just everything dovetails right into 2016 as you see.
>> host: the way that you define smear in the book you say one man's smear is another's truth and it's the overblown scandal extended narrative. it's a little bit different from the dictionary definition which seems to most to require this something is false. but in the definition for the greater community of allegations and so on and so forth, talk a little bit about why your approach is a little bit more inclusive if indeed you believe it is. >> guest: you are right about that. what i consider some of the best
ones are rooted in a little bit of truth and i describe italian operator waits for a small mistake against a target and can amplify that into a giant misdeed that reverberates in the national consciousness and i think what differentiates from a criticism that is born of something more legitimate than an outrageous if the purpose is rooted in annihilation or destruction of the target and not just bringing something to light and garnering an apology but the idea that there is often not always a disclosed financial or political motive behind it. secondly, the operators = as i point out in the book over lookk the same sort of behavior in their allies that they attack their targets for and i think that is another hallmark of how they operate.
>> host: you go into a lot of detail. what is your favorite example in the book i have to ask you to bring forth one example from the book which one would you say? >> guest: superlatives are tough for me. >> host: biscuits to the tension i was discussing. he's on the radio talking about a woman's college basketball game and refers to the players as nappy headed hoes or something like that and you frame this in your telling it as an example of the one time once
conservative propagandist moves to get a lot of ink in the smear and we will get into that later but what makes what they did a smear campaign? >> host: >> guest: the playbook for that was publicized as a playbook for future operations to come so i thought that was constructive. second of all it was presidential in that he really did say that if was rooted in truth. but what they wanted out of that was annihilation. they didn't want an apology they just wanted to take a moral high ground and they wanted him gone and the reasons were, in my opinion, rooted more in the interest about david brock and who he did or didn't support
politically more so than anything else, more so than just this was an outrage that they thought had to be corrected, so i thought it was a good example in the operation. >> host: but the thing is it didn't come out of nowhere, right? i he had a tremendous history of nasty bigoted statements. asked for that's my point. >> host: i guess, you know here's the thing that, okay, go ahead, that's your point. i will let you finish. best co. as i say in a book that's whathe bookthat's what h. and you can see that his past comments have not drawn that sort of outrage until the plane came in which he was targeted by media matters and they took something he said which was no more projection than many of the other things he said in the past were able to -- >> host: we can differ on that. >> guest: i can't siphon them off the top of my head but there are other objectionable things
he's said to his critics in the past, and that this is something they were able to create a campaign around by amplifying what happened using their website and using their social media tools and network of news organizations, so that was different. >> host: right. let me just move into the question of amplification of a little more. you are on twitter, im on twitter. cbs news and sinclair at full measure you amplify every day. if an administration official says something it may not be much notice. you find tapes of people saying things it may not be much notice. what is the problem? it seems as though you are calling this a problem. what is the evil in amplification? you understand what i'm saying? this is part of an open society. we have platforms that are not too amplified. so i think you did point this
out, you pointed out that in the beginning, very few actually noticed and that is a common theme in in the situations i will bring up a case in point. jesse waters on fox news debate segment on chinatown and it was widely viewed, and i agree coming as being offensive towards asian-americans were just asian in general. traffic in a lot of stereotypes. people just -- now, o'reilly gets on television and talks with chris wallace on fox news about this and says while, you know, nobody made much of a fuss about it it wasn't until people got a hold of it. isn't that a good thing that things were amplified? that people said look at this, you may have missed it because neither you nor i or anyone else
can see all of cnn or fox or all of radio so isn't it good that amplification? >> guest: i don't think i use the word evil in the book and i am careful to say some people may very well agree with what is done. they offer they've been such a way that it's intended to have overwhelming support for something when maybe there's not. maybe it is a handful of similar people operating in different names, with different groups and sometimes social media accounts
but then takes off the grass rootgrassroots part but you coud argue depending on if it is a good thing. so i'm kind of dissecting the way the offbeat and tools they use. sometimes you might say the results were good and sometimes you might say the results are bad or evil. i think it just depends. it shouldn't have been discussed. it's just a very good dissection of a quintessential operation. >> host: this is the definition because there's nothing false in this campaign. iwas there anything false in the campaign? >> guest: i didn't have anything true or false.
it sounds like the remark of considerable disapproval. read it five times if you want. media matters place is a remark on the dashboard of millions of americans. >> guest: they could take something other people wouldn't have seen it used the tools at the disposal against the target but they've been monitoring and generate it into something that generates national news coverage that is a huge success story. >> host: is it 100% true evidence. let's go through some of the specifics.
you state is there a similar sort of thing where he was not being very well heated or there wasn't a lot of attention paid in that he did get slammed by media matters and fox. >> guest: more attention at the time was being paid and what we discussed with immus and that is why he was so disturbing to the people that he opposes. and precisely because he had a large platform that shows him becoming very successful and then day after day the drumbeat he was following was his own smear campaign and you could say the media matters types and george soros said it was a grueling campaign between the two of them. but they made as you say in the book a public announcement to sort of get glenn beck is a
danger to humanity and society and i think they claimed credit for pulling him off the air. >> host: you're not making any judgment whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. >> guest: i think it is just an instructional tool of how the smear campaign was conducted. >> host: but fear is not a positive thing it is used as a false accusation to degrade someone's reputation. a synonym is slander. how do you reconcile those two things? >> guest: i've been clear with how i define it you can talk up the dictionary all you want but it's clear in the book but i consider. but it is a negative thing they were not spreading good things about glenn beck they were
spreading negative things and they were giving advertisers and spreading the word far and wide to have a show on the move and both of them did. and i think those are two of the best and earliest examples of media matters kind of honing its strategy and how they can target somebody that opposes the interests and they could actually affect a huge change in the past we have gone kind of unnoticed without the use of a social media tool and the network they had developed in news rooms and online listeners and so on. >> host: if it is true can it be a smear campaign? >> guest: b. outlines in the book some of them i say are rooted in truth or a grain of truth if they are of untrue information and often the best and most effective ones have a good route some truth to them. >> host: glenn beck said it
was president obama that had deep-seated hate trade for white people. he talked a lot about the apocalypse on his show and had some out there things that he was saying. i guess the question is is it a smear campaign if you are just repeating my next words? >> guest: this is how i define it. you are free to disagree. i do find it if the purpose is rooted and not just moral high ground if you may book and in violation of a target and someone who's been targeted for a political and financial interest i think that qualifies in the discussion of a smear campaign and that is often pointed to by the operators i interviewed as successful cases. i didn't often pull these out of a hat. i asked the people what they looked at and what they saw in their industries as successful.
>> host: i understand that. you talk about trump, and donald trump of course is on many different levels obviously in terms of the campaigns and the forces for kerry clinton spent a lot of time some of it is very elucidating on the entire. by the way you mentioned you can't get certain answers to certain questions i asked why they wouldn't answer the question. so anyway, david brock, go into a little bit of his history and
how you feel he fits in how you see him as part of the smear consolation. >> guest: both democrats and republicans i would say often times he was the most cited name when you talk about the industry and how you define it and he is fascinating in terms of the character for having started with a conservative artist of liberals who smear president clinton and later admitted to having done with david brock did, dishonest things to smear the clintons and then practically overnight, not technically overnight on behalf of liberals was invited to the clinton fold working on the other side of the fence that he's managed to build what i call an empire that is quoted or
looked at in all and discussed and some of the reporters work he got by him but also thought t he had done was pretty incredible. he has a network of nonprofit llc's, websites, super packs. some of them operate under neutral sounding games in the national and financial interest by the organizations as they put out material with many different names with a handful of the same interests to get the message o out. >> is around 15 million according to your calculation. >> guest: you're probably right. i would have to double check in the book.
>> guest: that is what i remember. i will stand by. tell me a little bit. your point there is they worked hard to keep track of these and correct the record and correct the fact. what about the propagation of the organization's? does that help them, what does it do for the political operative? >> guest: more had been written on if you look at the alternatives. i was able to find that has been out there and done and a chartered. less so on the groups there had been a little bit of time and it looks to me like he has multiple organizations that all have the same basic purpose. if you look at the tax forms and
so on, they trained him to go out and appear to the talking points but many of them do the same thing over and over. they collect money whether in intangible ways or not to be traced to a specific donor and then it moves around between the groups in ways that make it difficult to trace whether that is intentional or not, so i think it is a way to in my view make it look as though the message is coming from many different people and different groups the public doesn't know and reporters don't bother to find out. so i think i have a list in the book of how many of these different groups operate out of the same building or have operated in the same building. one of the funny moments was media matters for america one of the offshoots got in trouble for a controversy.
he said he blamed and that's not our fault, it's the other army's fault. >> host: [inaudible] >> guest: media matters message. >> host: i remember writing about that. >> guest: they blame each other when they are in the same office and personnel that he tried to make it look as though they were two different organizations and one was horrified by it so that lends credence to the idea in my mind that they would like it to look as though there are all these different organizations of people that disconnected the represented various groups. >> host: and media matters, you view them as all tours over and over to get this stuff done. obviously it has a counterpart in the conservative world
further research center. they do a lot of amplification to say she's done this or that. do you see any difference? >> guest: i talk a little bit about that and i think the biggest difference is it was much more successful. they've been more pervasive. i think they buy their own account and the people who would like to be like an, conservative interests, they just managed to play the game a lot better. i think both political sides want to achieve the same goal and have tried. with limited success sometimes conservatives feel they have the upper hand with this game all the time and sometimes liberals felt like they had the upper hand in the game. currently as i stayed here pretty much as everybody thought going into 2016 b. of the upper hand in terms of messaging then you see how the election turned out and you have to question
whether all the money spent by the groups to pick out certain political narratives was that money down the drain? it kind of proved that the networks and talking points that were so pervasive in the end they didn't have the desired effect so that was an interesting outcome. >> host: what exactly did his people and organizations do that you define as a smear? >> guest: they perpetuated a lot of articles and coverage and people they called reporters that they would hate to write stories and viewpoints and then they would publish some of them themselves on the website and some of them they worked with partners in the news world and they could get the stories placed so that they look to the
casual observer and if they are sort of organic that's one thing he said, but day in and day out it's very good for this in its handling of information on the website and distribution of talking points to the reporters and the super pack bragged about all the people that had influenced into the stories that generate and how damaging it had been for certain candidates like jeb bush that they had been responsible and claimed credit for establishing the narratives on the republican candidates before they could even get out of the gate. >> host: with respect to trump, and of the "washington post" sort of figures and they're a little bit because of the exit hollywood tape. this is october 27 of course, a really big moment when the tape comes out of trump saying to
billy bush all these nasty things like grab them by the pussy in office, really terrible stuff. and you say that that is if i'm not mistaken you say that is the mother of all smears. how is that a smear? >> guest: was about or the one i highlighted in "the new york times" article about all the women he had mistreated, the women came out afterwards and said they were misquoted and mischaracterized in the article so maybe also this is grouped under that heading. because again, that was an amplified incident. the same sort of behavior that -- >> host: what was amplified about to take? i mean, the tape was played. >> guest: i mean amplified that it was very broadly circulated and sent around and in hyperspeed fashion by all the people that oppose the president, the candidates interests. >> host: so another troops near? >> guest: yeah, i mean it was
rooted in truth but i don't think anybody took even the president didn't take issue with the words that he spoke. the way that it was characterizecharacterized in thd used, people didn't just report that this happened. it took on a life of its own as you saw in the news with people demanding all kinds of things happening and it was the worst thing that ever happened on the planet. >> host: wasn't a pretty awful, just horrific? >> guest: it was very negative. i don't think anybody is arguing the opposite. and i am not saying that it shouldn't have been reported. but the tone that it took and the amount of air space it took up on the national news when there are so many things that need to be reported, the narrative being promulgated not that it was a false narrative but it was an amplified narrative beyond what was deserved.
i talk about some in the past that have happened and then i compare other things in the world wer that were happening tt were not covered and it shows you the amount of attention something was getting because there was an interest in the annihilation of the target versus legitimate news happening internationally that got almost no coverage. >> host: these things happening internationally? >> guest: i would have to look back at the book. i would hate to site off top of my head, but there were important stories on another smear that i dismears but i dido the headlines that didn't make the news as much as a smear headline and important national events about the civil rights violation in the countries which the united states was involved. a giant rape cases at the university that had to be thrown out because something was wrong with the campaign. or many stories wherwere many se
narrative effectively overtakes the news that are crowded out and have to take up of air space where nothing else fits in and i think that is part of the harm. >> host: this wasn't a narrative, it's a story. >> guest: is a narrative in my view when it's not just a story told with what i did consider having beewould considerhaving r all the decades i did sort of a normal emphasis on the story that it deserves and the coverage when something takes a group of pretty much the whole news environment for as long as it did i quoted one guy in there that just an average guy that i run into from time to time and he said to me -- >> host: was at the [inaudible] -- >> guest: every time i turn on the tv they are talking about the tape, the tape days later. and that doesn't happen with much bigger stories at times, so you have to decide well, why does it happen with certain stories and then much bigger important stories that affect millions of americans are never
seen and what does it have to do with the people in certain areas? postcode with the republican nominee, does that not affect millions of americans? >> guest: i'm not sure the characterization is exactly how i would characterize it. i am not defending the behavior that i am saying that it deserves, it probably deserves some coverage and probably deserves significant coverage, i am not arguing that. what it takebut it takes on a lt is rooted in the annihilation of a target and there is a financial motive that is not always disclosed and when it takes on the amplification as you say sometimes naturally occurring but to the exclusion of so much other news that is out there gets i think that is the narrative on the campaign. >> host: can i not say the same thing about the benghazi reporting?
>> guest: >> host: you report on this and i happen to think it is a serious issue that needed a lot of reporting that -- >> guest: [inaudible] >> host: i could say that you -- >> guest: people did say that and that's part of -- >> host: what's the difference between benghazi and the over -- it is all subjective at some point. >> guest: the difference with benghazi as there is no political or financial motive and was rooted in the annihilation of a target in fact -- >> host: obama? >> guest: i didn't know it went up to president obama. my sources on the story of her lifelong democrats barely working for the obama administration. so if those had been political sources who have been getting the information on the other side of the scale and have been coming to me -- you look long and hard at the motivations and
report what you need to report in this case they were not looking to destroy the president, these were people who supported the president and supported jewelry clinton so that differentiates it in my view when the motivations of those making the claims and accusations are taken into account. >> host: given about the smear and as you say you are writing it for about 2015 presidential campaign, i sort of figured he would take a look at donald trump's own, the false accusations he's leveled on any number of people, wall street and on and on and on. but you say that trump is the anti-smear candidate. >> guest: as i describe in the book that doesn't mean he doesn't smear and by the way, the brezinski thing happened
after this was published. >> host: are you liking into an action figure? >> guest: the unexpected comes from donald trump, this is everybody else in my view. but anti-smear doesn't mean he doesn't. quite the contrary, it means they don't stick to him the same way they stick to everybody else, and i think that's what the campaign in 2016 proved, that regardless of true smears as you say that were promulgated against them, they would also be promulgated against him. he was a child rapist, things like that circulated -- >> host: they didn't circulate very much. [inaudible] >> guest: there's mainstream media that reported on a child rape case. >> host: i went back and looked and in most cases, you know, i think you can discuss the ethics whether you even write a story about it, but in most cases they talk about the
accuser and accusations being somewhat grounded, am i wrong about that? >> guest: i felt someone took it on as if it is a news story. ultimately it was debunked as the news conference called and someone didn't show up for the tone was taken after that. the point being they were promulgated against the clinton and donald trump. they didn't stick to donald trump in the same way that they stuck to other candidates because they didn't respond and react to them the way political interests do and that is what made him a wildcard. >> host: isn't he the antithesis of what you are objecting in this book as a promoter of actual smears like dictionary qualifying and doesn't have an apparatus like
there is no group behind his. >> host: >> guest: she doesn't even have a super pack and as you know it wouldn't be the name of the candidate on behalf of them without their explicit approval he didn't have that so as i say in the book he was his own promulgated or. he gave nicknames to all of his opponents. he did the dirty work himself. >> host: you say some of them are based on truth and some are not. again, that is not in accordance with that language, but i
understand. then you say he's a successful businessman and condit's political opponents with a strike of genius and punish them with catchy nicknames like little marco, crazy bernie, he managed to pick them up one by one until it was just down to him and crooked hillary. donald trump may be kryptonite as a smear. after reading your various annunciation's or i guess you don't call them that's what i read them as the annunciation's. >> guest: you can conduct fair. >> host: here's donald trump calling ted cruz a lawyer inside a nickname and you are cheering him on. >> guest: you can take it that way if you want but that isn't cheering him on. >> host: stroke of genius? trump is a successful businessman to contact this political opponents with a stroke of genius and employs classic strategies and catchy
nicknames. i mean if you're saying a stroke of genius that sounds like an applause to me, not to you? >> guest: not necessarily. it doesn't mean that you agree with what they've done or that it's a good thing. there's all kinds of ingenious things that happen. i see how you are reading the book and i'm glad that's your take away. i think other people will have their own. >> host: but if smears in himself? >> guest: he does his own dirty work in the terms i use because he didn't have a super pack acting on his behalf early on and then he finally did have one join him after he received the republican nomination, he finally had somebody working on his behalf. >> host: so you're just pointing out that he is a different brand of actor and a different approach to these smears. but at the same time, when you talk about the mccain thing,
this is i guess july, 2015 he talks about john mccain and the whole thing with mccain being a war hero and it's some very tortured language in the video and i know you watch it very closely. it is wholly different from where you treat the back episodes where you talk about the person that has been at the end of the so-called smear. so you don't stick up for mccain and you handled at the "washington post" who you feel hais not properly reported on ts incident as opposed to donald trump, why are you smearing john mccain? >> guest: number one no offense to you and number two
i'm not here to defend or cheer on. people do mistake when you criticize media behavior at times it doesn't mean i support him or that i'm cheering him on. i see those as separate things to do this misread often as you must be supporting him or you must not like x. or y. because it has nothing to do with that and it's looking at the fair and accurate media coverage and i've spoken out frequently including some of the "washington post" coverage. in fact let's read this little segment about you if you would like to answer this part. >> host: which one is this? >> guest: this is the one about my transaction journalism chapter and there are some e-mails between journalists and clinton and you wrote an article criticizing the press exposed to the e-mail saying corrupt journalism doesn't pay, and then
i say you're about to become involved in a very controversial criticized clinton aide fires back at you in a letter that he wrote you making it clear that he thinks you've engaged in some of the same transaction journalism and in fact when it comes to me which i found surprising, he says that you have admitted you were clinton's aid for a wide-ranging discussion about the news correspondent and you've asked for the ground rules for the top and said you stipulate in other words he could call the shots on the discussion about me. why are you having a discussion about me or if he calls the shots. >> host: it's called reporting. >> guest: i don't let people call the shots on reporting when i do it. >> host: let me just check one thing i want to emphasize here.
is that 163, 164? >> guest: is page 163, yes. but what ar were you trying to d out about, why argue trying to get a wide-ranging conversation to make them dictate the terms about the? >> host: -- >> guest: i'm just asking what was the topic? >> host: the topic was you were. >> guest: why were you reporting on my work? >> host: because i'm a media reporter and your cbs news. what else would i do. this is what i am paid to do? >> guest: so you let them stipulate terms in the conversation -- approach enemies and with them stipulate the conversation. >> host: i don't believe we ever had th have the conversati- >> guest: i can only tell you what you wrote -- >> host: it was very clear i was reading all of your work basically. i was going back and looking at all the transcripts of your work -- >> guest: and what about philly jay ryan's wife never met before and the life that he shut
on me? >> guest: >> host: he was familiar with how you'd reported on the state department and so on and so forth. this is called reporting. >> guest: i've never met him so i don't know what was said. >> host: okay so i need -- >> guest: it's just interesting that you approached him for a wide-ranging discussion to stipulate the terms. >> host: i agree. what we while we are comparing notes on how you come after me in the book is perfectly fine i don't have a problem with that im fair game.
send a draft of the story that john podesta. the "washington post" and huffingtonpost writes stories about the promotions and any mention of the recent controversy surrounding them. you read this passage from the book you've can't be an eight-year senior in high school there may be as a part of the e-mails pertaining to the campaign put face to face with
>> guest: after you published things that were not true so i didn't want to engage with you. >> host: can you name any of those things that were disingenuous? >> guest: they were implications. i don't want to have an e-mail dialogue with you but i can send you more details. i don't want to debate them here while we talk. >> host: if you can say on air that i did something true -- >> guest: by your own admission you can't say you didn't publish an article cited where you didn't disclose it.
if >> host: don't you think that it's important to mention? >> guest: there was an article that you had written that didn't discuss many people never saw this one and i think that still stands. let's get back to the book where you go from here. you see the industry slowing down at all in the coming years? it's hard to disentangle from that quickly. people say what is the solution and i don't think there is an easy overnight solution. in the business, we inadvertently in a lot of cases are used as tools in the industry and i think that it's been happening over the course of years from a well-funded
well-organized industry in part and i don't think that there is a simple way to make the pendulum swing in the other direction at least quickly so i think what the book is about is getting people to be aware and ask questions when you see a common narrative pervasive over and over again on the thousands of stories we could be talking about on a given night we talk about the same ones over and over using similar language and it is also being amplified on social media it doesn't mean it's not true where there's not a grain of truth but sometimes there is. you should be asking who wants me to think this and what do they not want me to be looking at and i do they want my attention in one direction. those are important ways people can at least be thinking about is someone trying to sway their opinion? >> host: what about the distinction between the narrative and the story? you said access hollywood became a narrative, it wasn't just a
story. how does a consumer make the distinction? >> guest: it's really hard. as i said in the book and it is in the eye of the beholder. one person -- >> host: i don't agree with that but that's okay. >> guest: it's okay this is my book. but also, i think that, you know, when people watch some people may think something is a narrative that others might think that its objective. i've given as i say at the top of the pixie book these are my opinions and the kind of how i see what i've seen in the industry. you may disagree into people that read it may disagree or may disagree on some points and not others. you may look at one case and think that falls into category, buin thecategory, but this does. and i just hope it gets people thinking and i hope you do form your own judgments. i'm not trying to wrestle you to the ground and make you think a certain way. just trying to put some facts before you and i think i've heard a lot of. you write a lot of facts that i think are true and widely more well reported.
i'm trying to peel back the layers on things i just don't see or hear written about as often. >> host: thank you for your time. i appreciate it. we are exceptionally excited to welcome steve here tonight. the second time you posted you. i think the last time it was a smaller state and you were in years ago. steve will talk about his book refinery town which is about richmond, california. and it'sll