tv Washington Journal CSPAN August 10, 2015 7:45am-10:01am EDT
rely on coal for their energy. west virginia, 95%. kentucky, 89%. 79%.uri, you can see the list from there. these are the bottom 10 states. rhode island, vermont, oregon, maine,nia, idaho, washington, new york, new jersey, and connecticut. esther obama announced the .oughest regulations on coal this is is more on coal that he announced in 2008. he has long admitted that fromving omissions coal plants will bankrupt coal .tates stephen moore points out that these are red states. there is also this in "the new york times" front page. the story about teachers saying
that across the country, states 're scrambling to fill teachers roles, california hit hardest. california, the situation is more stark. california lost 82,000 jobs in the recession, teacher jobs. they are trying to fill 21,500 for this this -- slots coming school year. also, a story about coca-cola and obesity. the front line is that the company, coca-cola, funds and effort to curb the obesity battle, emphasis on exercise. critics say this message is misleading. some other news for you this morning. front pages of "wall street "new york times" this morning. floyd in indiana, an
independent. what do you think of political correctness? caller: i think donald trump is exactly right. i have been watching c-span for a long long time. they come up with different lives on every situation. i watched the debate on thursday night, and all of the questions they asked the different candidates, no one asked the question about what they would do on iran. all of them are talking about what obama and hillary clinton didn't do, but they never asked the question. stuff istical correct a bunch of politicians getting up and telling the same lies over and over again. everyone will go to washington and change washington. in two years, you don't hear from them. that's my take. all right. janice, jacksonville, florida. caller: good morning. the comments i wanted to make
a commercial katie couric did, democrats used in 2008. that commercial forcefully said that the real issue in this campaign is sexism, and the fact that no one is doing anything about it. that commercial somehow got pulled after about two showings. here we go again with donald trump. for people to think the liberal media -- that is ridiculous. the media, the mainstream media, for the most part, they hold up a standard of decency that we all need to pay attention to. yes, it should be politically correct to be decent to people. the media, brilliantly, took the and word -- and i am southern, i'm glad they did it, they took and made it
zero-tolerance overnight. i wish they could do the same for the women. i am willing to let them expose -- this was wrong, this was despicable, and it should not be tolerated host:. alright, i'm going to leave it there and get in one other headline. the michael brown anniversary, as many of you know, over the weekend in ferguson. police shoot suspect in ferguson. people are watching to see if eruptsiolence of a over the next few days. don, you are next. caller: i think political correctness exists on the east and west coast. they fly over the country. we don't buy into political correctness. it is often times stupid speech.
i have one observation about the debate and the treatment of trump. i didn't know that the moderators, as representatives of the republican party, would ask him questions on that. i thought that if it was a really fair debate, it would have had a question, and that would have been answered by all 10 candidates. they definitely personalize the whole thing too much. i was really disappointed at fox, and i am a republican. host: do you watch fox a lot of? caller: i do. i watch all the time. i'm kind of rethinking it a little bit, not that my views have changed, but i think fox has become -- well, politically correct. i think that is a sign for me that they're not talking the truth. host: all right. medial talk about
coverage of this campaign and public policy debates here in washington. first, we will talk with tim graham, executive editor of newsbusters. later, we will talk with eric boehlert of media matters. first, the brookings institute held an event on the future of afghanistan. the issue of afghanistan in the papers this morning, taliban leadership shifts. take a look at what general john campbell had to say last week on the future of this country. [video clip] them a the afghan side, the security forces, they are doing 98%-90 9% of this on their own. i'm providing trade advising assist at the core level and
some of the special operating forces level. they have this, and they have this on the time that has been very tough. i think they continue to progress. i don't think -- i think the taliban is starting to realize, and realize before the fighting season, that they needed to do something spectacular this make ag season to statement that they are relevant, but again, they're not making the gains that they talked about. are they having high-profile attacks? yes. one or two people with a suicide the best running into an ngo, that is very hard to stop. again, i think the afghan security forces continue to improve. the people need to continue to stand up and identified a person in the village that doesn't belong there. as they do that and partner with the afghan security forces, i don't think they will be beat. host: to watch more of what the
general has to say on afghanistan, you can go to our website, c-span.org. at a table, tim graham, director of the media research center's media analysis program, as well as executive editor of newsbusters. lifting your general reaction of the debate last week. was it fair? a lot of people have a mistaken idea of what happened there. i think all the candidates got rough questions. i think people need to look of the transcript again. you can say, look, some of the questions were hard-hitting, sometimes sensational, or personal, but it was a good show. i think they're right to suggest that these are some questions that they expect liberal moderators to ask. some of them fairly hard hitting questions. host: what did you make of that?
the effort by the moderators, the fox anchors, to ask questions that many republican viewers were surprised at and disappointed with? guest: i know republicans want ,uestions that are substantive that would be good. everyone wants substance. everyone wanted to see trump get asked questions of substance, to see his reaction. this is the problem of media coverage so far, they're covering trump as a tablet figure, and all of the wild and crazy things that he says. while trump dominates the coverage, the coverage says, isk at how trump dominating the coverage. i was hoping the debate would broaden out the coverage and allow some candidates some breathing room. host: is that the fault of the
media? the moderators? the candidates? it is the media. i turned on the tv last night, and thought, "child dominating the news -- trump dominating the news." it all feeds on itself on some level. i wouldn't say that coverage of trump has been positive, it has been largely negative, just like the coverage of hillary clinton has been largely negative so far. i think the problem with politics as we don't get enough of it. so much stuff that doesn't have anything to do with politics. you have a small hole that has to do with the campaign. the edges sink thing about trump running is the amount of coverage of the republican race went up dramatically because they thought that people would find this interesting the way they like thunderstorms, but
mudslides. host: what is the media missing about these candidates and their campaigns, and the public policy issues? guest: there are a lot of things to talk about. i think one of the things that they are not talking about is just the way the obama presidency has gone. that is obviously a major issue. if you come in in 2007, and say, let's have a debate and not talk at all about what the administration has done, that would be interesting. during the bush years, it was always, every day, what is the latest bush fiasco? which ever present we have, how they decide to use executive power -- beasley, the way this president has used it is surprisingly noncontroversial. more substance. i think the networks today think viewer whoscerning
really wants to see the candidates has lots of choices, they have c-span, youtube, all kinds of ways to get their news. to make their money, they would rather do stories that their consultants tell them will square with viewers. host: there has been criticism that the real intent of the fox news network and monitors was to field. the fille we just heard from a viewer that said the media wants us to vote for jeb bush, just like they wanted us to vote for mitt romney. guest: i think there is that feeling at this point in a race. in some cases, -- it has been more dramatic. in the happy hour debate, the question was, "why are you waitin running fo president, you don't have a chance.
i certainly would share that concern. it is so early, that is the way things to be discussed, why don't they just -- yeah, policy questions would be good. i think it's fine to say, why don't we asked the same question of 10 people. i think the concern there was it is not great television. in the republican debate, they thought maybe they would sound a lot alike on these issues. if they said, trade policy, go. that would not be very exciting. we will see if the candidates go onto the next debates, how it will be different. host: the progressive watchdog group, media matters, coming out websited this on their --
guest: when you take a group that is basically -- hillary asts that she basically founded media matters. for them to say that anyone is putting out propaganda, that stuff.ty rich the reaction from these people is that it is all a charade, they can't really be this way, it is all an evil and affairs conspiracy -- i just don't buy it. host: how is the media covering hillary clinton's campaign and the democratic nomination process versus the republican candidates and that nomination process? guest: hillary clinton, on the evening news, has the most amount of coverage. she has about 190 minutes of comes in second
at 116 minutes. she has dominated the democratic .ace if you look at a candidate that has done the most positive coverage, not the most amount, that would be bernie sanders. his coverage has been remarkably positive, about the size of his crowds, and his appeal. the coverage of mrs. clinton has been pretty negative, a lot of that on her e-mails. i think what is remarkable to us is how she has decided to run this campaign, saying, she is not granting interviews or doing sunday shows like donald trump. she will just run and not to much press at all. it is amazing to me that she can get away with that. the media did not have much self-respect when they were roped in on the street. tot: she response on twitter
wherever the debate is happening, in washington, were out of washington, she will come to twitter. what do you make of candidates using that rather than the mainstream media? can be the most consultant driven material. it is not the same as the back-and-forth with journalists . she is running a very canned campaign. is exactly what she didn't in 2007. they were doing more immediate back then than what she is doing now. back then, abc had 45 minute town hall meetings with the candidates. republicans never get that kind of airtime. host: we are talking about media politics with tim graham, the media analysis director for the media research center, he is also the executive editor of
newsbusters and co-author of the ."ok "collusion barb.e up first, caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been watching c-span for years and years. i've what you call one of the old ones because i am in my 70's and have been involved in politics all of my life. i worked for john kennedy, and also bobby. i have changed totally over because i've not interested in the media and politics being able to tell us what is politically correct. i'm backing trump because he is a leader. as far as the 10 up there, you part of his cabinet
from them. they have some sharp ones up there. i'm also a backer of ted cruz, i would love to see him as vice president. c-span, we don't get people. that is open to ever anyonelly what thinks. we are not talking about what is really wrong in a mess right now in all directions. we have to get someone in there who can change it and turn it around. i think trump can. guest: again, i think there's a lot of appeal in trump, and that is where the media comes in. with ross perot, there was this whole notion of running the government as a business. people love this idea trump
because he can be either the guy who takes the nomination and the bull in the china shop, or becomes a third-party candidate .ike ross perot host: what do you make of barb sentiment is that there is this antiestablishment, and in that, against the established media. it is not just what is happening in congress or the white house. it is skepticism and cynicism towards the mainstream media. guest: the media has a lot of power. one of the reasons we do what we starting with john kennedy, television became a big factor in who becomes president. now, we are at a point where the media seems to want to say who
the president will be, but when they become president, the issues are too boring. toon't expect there will be much heavy coverage of the epa regulations. this is not the kind of story they like to do. they would rather have, what did trump say about megyn kelly's time of the month. to some extent, it is insulting, really, to the voter. they think, we have a lot of people in the audience who don't vote or vote rarely, so that is not our concern, it is how many times can we get people to watch the red lobster commercial. host: what you make of the interest? guest: again, here is a figure, kind of a tablet figure, and what will he say next. you probably had a much higher democratic audience for this than you would normally have for
a republican debate because they were looking at what kind of train wreck this would be. i was surprised at how large it was, it was probably twice as large as i expected it to be. we will see if that continues. this is one of the reasons why they are doing so much coverage fo of trump because they think he is good for their business. that is one of the stories you can find on the media research website. frank is a democrat in colorado. caller: i have a question. trump is entirely a media creation. i was wondering whether you think having someone like donald trump, someone who is otherwise a reality show presenter with a , running a money viable presidential campaign, does that represent the end of our fair and true democracy and
fair and true media coverage in america as we know it? calleri like the who is making the point that trump is being seen as a populist, not a lobbyist. that he gave money to hillary clinton to come to his wedding is what lobbyists expect. don chubb has the right to run for president. he has one of the things that all the candidates want, he has a very high name. he has been the representative of the new york business community since the 1980's. he has been a route along time. you can see where that media would find him an interesting candidate. it is funny and away because i think journalist think he does it have any experience. he would probably need a lot of education as to how to be
president, but they are just enjoying the ride right now and want to see where it goes. i think they all expected that he would not file his campaign finance disclosures. they are writing it -- riding it. host: houston, texas, a republican. caller: i think is really important that if you look at the indicator of 24 million watching the debate tells me what i have been knowing for at least two decades now, and that with the media, and their propaganda for democratic and republican causes. i think we are starting to wake and are nowct rejecting anything that the media is doing, just to show them that we are sincere about
what we will look for in a candidate. i will say that i would rather trump than any of the gop well-wishers, such as jeb bush. i think we have to stick together, and recognize that abc, cbs,turn off the nbc, and cnn, and start really listening to what our hearts are saying, we will find that this country is really going to go downward until we decide it is time we've had enough of what the trees it is -- treasonous media has done. guest: i would not say treasonous, necessarily. again, the problem is -- let's take a look at something like the national debt. this is not a story that they do. you can look at all of the coverage of 200 2012 and look
"deficit," and you will have a hard time. we have this remarkable trillion dollar deficit as far as the aiken c, and they decided it was not going to be an issue, not going to be on the table. that is something where you say, if the national media would like to represent itself as a referee for politics, it is missing a lot of the time. its main focus is always who is up, who is winning, who said what about who, and the substance gets lost a lot. .ost: robert, an independent you are on the air. ? ,? comment?on or donald it is about trump. why didn't they ask the rest of
the representatives have a businesses do you own, how many people are you hiding? butthey are doing nothing -- there is not one of them worth voting for except for .trump he doesn't want their money, he doesn't need their money, he is running his own campaign. he doesn't want anything to do with them. why in the world -- the american citizens can't wake up and realize that we need a man like that in there that knows business, knows how to run business because america is a business.i but: we understand that, what you make of how he is being covered by the television networks, by the print media. caller: i tell you, they are all
afraid of him. all of them out there are in the pockets of lobbyists, special isn't.ts, and trump the rest of them, all they want is whatever money the lobbyists and special interests can put in their pockets. guest: again, i find that completely mind-boggling that you would say, i don't like the lobbyists, i don't like the let's elect asts, special interest. it doesn't make sense to me. is obviously another businessperson in the race, carly fiorina, who was ceo of hewlett-packard. you would have to think the next time when they do polling, she might end up in the first year of the debate -- first-tier of the debate. i don't think that being a politician somehow disqualifies them. there are a number of governors,
governors are here in washington, but running governments and their states. i don't think that is a disqualification in any way. oft: what about the coverage carly fiorina? is she being propped up artificially? there have not been many questions about her business operations being guest: she has about her business operations. guest: she has to talk about being fired. when you get down there in the weeds, they are getting almost no coverage whatsoever. i think this debate performance was one chance for her to get some air time. host: is the coverage of bernie sanders matching the amount of people that are showing up for his events? 12,000 in seattle. guest: i didn't see overnight how they covered him there. this to me presents the only time he gets negative coverage
because these black life matters protesters keep showing up. republican voters just don't do that. they're very mannerly and well behaved. they don't try to interrupt your campaign. won'the news media do is look at it and say, this may be trouble for the democrats. some of useminds older people of the 1972 convention, not that i was very old at the time, but the convention was a mess because they let people talk until like 2:00 in the morning. columbus, georgia, duncan, a democrat. good morning to you. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. , for the most part, hatredt mr. trump's
comments and remarks about anyone who says anything negative about him. it is really sad. i was really saddened by the comments that he made in regards to miss kelly. as far as i'm concerned, it was a fair question. hatreds to say a lot of and very ugly things about people, i imagine just because he can. he is a rich man, and all that stuff. know, i am like a lot of others, it is no excuse for the things that he says. that,azed by the people according to the polls, have fallen behind him. i understand politics a little it. i'm a 57-year-old man. i follow it just a tad. our politics has reached a new
low with this derailment here with this gentleman here. he gets in these news conferences, and what have you, and in the ones i have watched, he is not saying anything. host: ok. tim graham? guest: this is the funny part, here we have trump, all over the sunday shows -- is some other candidates got some time to talk, where is mrs. clinton? every time i see mr. trump take tough questions, and that was a tough question, a personal question, and i can understand as a candidate how that can be an upsetting question. other candidates got tough questions. jeb bush got the iraq question. the first thing i would say is where is hillary clinton getting
tough questions like this? i think fox news would ask her these questions, if they can, but she is so afraid of the andrea mitchell of nbc who would give her and adoring interview, she is not even willing to do that. the dominant question i would ask right now as a media critic is why is mrs. clinton allowed to do this, to not speak? that should be a question that any self-respecting journalists should ask. host: and still get coverage? guest: i think there's a lot of questions that she could be and scandals.licy you have some a scandals on her. we want to talk about women, there are lots of questions about clinton and women. and, there's a really hard question for democrats about land parenthood that she has not had to answer. host: we will go next to richard -- anndependent co
independent caller. caller: people are starting to see the light. the republicans and democrats cannot and will not fix problems like securing the border, creating jobs, balancing the budget. i don't know how long we will be fighting over there in the mideast, and for what, sending troops to die for what? it is very obvious that the political parties have become a cartel. what the people want, their job is to reject the people in the country, create the best .nvironment, create jobs they cannot do that and will not do it. trump, who has been a businessman, and does not seem like he is part of the political
act, i think he can. a lot of people think he can. more power to him. from what i hear, it looks like 9-10 for him. party for the people, for the country, and for the world. we have been run by this oligarch of cartels for too long, and all they will do is create problems. guest: again, how can the news media cover a balanced budget? how does the news media cover immigration? remarkably slanted coverage of immigration. they don't really want to have a discussion about the negative impact of immigration, whether it is crime by illegal aliens, or the burden on our systems, work if we have issues where people are concerned about culture and whether people speak
english language. what you may call a conservative agenda on immigration, the talking points, they will avoid all of those. where we have gotten in coverage of immigration is very sympathetic files of illegal aliens. that is usually where everything starts. a republican from new jersey, go ahead. caller: as someone who lives in a state with very little, if not if not no,ence -- influence, white should i watch these debates? the media pretty much decides , andirst major candidates then the nomination is all about wraps up on super tuesday. the way the media covers this,
why should i care? ones: again, they are the running the show at this particular point. obviously the candidates have their own plan. it is true. theeresting things -- interesting thing about all of this is you have 17 candidates, and you ask how many will still be on the ballot at the iowa caucus? i guess about 15. will drop0 of them off after two votes. that is a frustrating thing. the voters really don't get much of a right to decide. we don't have these long drawn out primaries. obviously we did in 2008, but that was because people runrstood that obama would anyway. they were really concerned in the obama camp of losing. t an instrument leave for people before they even get a roll. i could see very much where you say that i will not have a real
input as a voter as to where this thing goes. maybe you have to be a media critic to make media change the way media is run. let memummy babs -- bounce this headline off of you, "hillary clinton begins taking risks and landing some punches." taking anyis not right now. and get knows that. she covered her at the state department and covered her as a cheerleader. grew inmight
her legacy, whatever her legacy is. , and thereound a lot are still a lot of questions about benghazi that haven't been answered. that is another one of these issues that congress is investigating, and the news media is try to ignore. the clinton scandals, for most networks, they are not interested in covering, though, scandal, the same thing. politico had this recent story. the media summer fling with joe biden. his moving personal story and a desire for a more competitive coverages to favorable . asst: that strikes me democratic nervousness. i don't think any of them -- if you really look, did joe biden run impressive campaign and 1998
or 2008? no. the idea that he would somehow be doing better than jim webb here, except for the fact that he is vice president of the united states. i think the thing that we find most amending is the way -- joe hisn puts his foot in mouth about twice a week, and the media says "charming." host: "washington times," there two failed -- presidential bid could haunt biden. robert, your next. caller: thank you. i would like to relay what is going on in the political arena today to what was going on in rome. they built an amphitheater and ew in animals, and people cheered. fox news is just giving yahoos what they want.
guest: again, the great thing about the debate is that it actually let's other candidates talk. it would have been better if all of the candidates have gotten equal time. some of the backers of the candidates were tweeting, where is ted cruz, where it's been crews? carson? is ben without me candidates, that is the risk, that some get lost in the middle. there was one statistic that moderators spoke 31% of the time. guest: that happens a lot. they know that short questions are probably better, in terms of being a hard ball question, the shorter, the better. thatgraham was upset candidates didn't answer the
questions. obviously, this is something the politicians do, and the consultants tell them, you get your talking points out, whatever the questions are. host: my low in iowa, what do you think of media and their coverage of the 2016 campaign? caller: good morning. i would just like to remind trap gott believe that that questions -- actually, i thought every question asked in the debate of every one of the candidates was tough. if the folks think that mr. trump got some hard, tough questions, if he gets the nomination, i would like to remind him that the liberal ll will behea unleashed on donald trump if he gets the nomination. the ammunition that he is giving them right now -- i mean, if we thought was that with romney,
this will exceed anything. right now, and there's a gentleman the called and earlier about the treasonous media, which i'm sorry, i have watched a really great attention, especially over the last six years, and i totally agree. it is really a bad name on journalism. it is too bad that is how it is. mr. trouble have a very hard time if he is the nominee. guest: i think i would put money on that prediction as well. if nestor trump -- mr. trump is the republican nominee, and doesn't run for an independent they waited until mitt
romney was the nominee for the party to run a story. he was the only plausible republican candidate who didn't lay inattack until that the race. in our book, we talk about how every republican candidate, who rose to the top of the polls, got hit with an investigative journalism thing. the paintedwith rock. rick santorum's wife lived with an abortionist. i think it is likely that we get all kinds of story from trump's life if you were to get the nomination. host: isn't that the role of the media? as they rise, they let the potential voter know that this is the other side, things that could be caught rishel for you. guest: this is where the pick and choose comes in. these are not the stories they will want to do about the clintons -- how is bill clinton
is not a story they will be out there searching to find. what hillary clinton with the law firm records is not as interesting as what mitt romney did with the scissors in 1955. the democrats get a different ,tandard on personal behavior on scandals, on policy positions that republicans get. for example, the michele bachmann piece. a gay activist group sent a adden camera in, and abc did huge story on it. they have a very demanding double standard on what they decide the new should be. is it because republicans run on morals? guest: that is part of it, but the question you would ask mrs. clinton is
.unning on feminism it is just as much of a moral issue in a different way. the clinton's massive wealth building, the massive speaking fees, these are the kind of stories -- doing them,rs are but the networks have not been not interested in those stories at this point, or those angles. republicans are going to use that against mrs. clinton to say, "we're populist? how much money do you have?" host: welcome to the conversation. you're on the air with tim graham. caller: my question is, have any news reporters looked into the possibility of hillary clinton
half campaign people being -- hillary clinton's campaign people being behind the #blacklivesmatters' disruptions at bernie sanders' rallies? clinton's people are behind it, because he is gaining on her. he has more people that turn out for his rallies than she does. and i firmly believe that her people are behind the #blacklivesmatters disruptions at bernie sanders' rallies? guest: i suppose what we need to disprove that is a #blackli vesmatter process at a hillary clinton event -- protest at a hillary clinton event. i think the #blacklivesmatter
movement -- first of all, that's a very insulting hashtag. then when you say "all lives matter," they get very upset. if you're going to run for the democrats and say, elect us for president, we think all caps are murderers --are that's not going to play. again, this kind of truth is a racist narrative, then we are going to ignore it. then you don't get news. host: dave, a democrat in michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. tim, obviously, you have appointive -- a point of view.
may ioint out first-- point out first that your comparison of what happened to bush in 2007 to 2008 is just off skew. back then, we had record home foreclosures, record job loss, a six-year war that was supposed to last weeks months. you wonder why bush wasn't taking heat? the stock market was falling. my last point is, with bernie sanders, why isn't the so-called liberal media just covering bernie sanders? the media seems to not be covering him at all. host: we will take both of those points. bernie sanders is getting covered. they are trying to figure out whether he represents a real threat clinton -- misses clinton -- real threat to mrs. clinton.
they have this nervousness, can she do it? they had the same nervousness around bill. these stories are stories they don't want to do. but bernie sanders has gotten a lot of coverage. again, nobody is going to ask the question, like, so the democratic party is a socialist party? these people say the republicans are extreme. the death threats seem extreme if they are running as self-described socialists, as the phenomenon drawing attention and building large crowds. doesn't that say something about perhaps the democrats are out of touch? this is a capitalist country, last i checked. host: good morning, howard. caller: good morning. the question i have is, for the media, do some research on the good old boy concept in
washington between the republicans and the democrats. it doesn't make any difference how much wrongdoing, how many mistakes they make, or whether it is negligence, like hillary in benghazi. they just use them for talking points. they never filed any charges. like the irs, there are no charges filed. or there are no charges filed against hillary. as far as trump, if you will read almost any book on how to be successful, it tells you do not associate with failures. associate with successful people and they will help you become successful, and trump is the most successful one of the bunch that is running. and god bless him for exercising his right free-speech -- his right for free-speech. host: all right. guest: the question i wanted in
that was the bankruptcy. again, the populists into this populists answer the question, yeah, i use the bankruptcy laws in my favor. most americans don't do billion dollars bankruptcies. that's where you do wonder. the assessment of his business record is going to be something that will get more in the media. host: tim graham and others at mrc.org and newsbusters.org. you can follow tim graham on twitter, @newsbusters. thank you for your time. guest: thank you, greta. host: coming up, we will get a different perspective from eric hlert of- eric boe media matters. all that right after this break. ♪
>> with the senate in its august break, we will feature booktv programming in primetime on c-span2 starting at eight akaka p.m. eastern. -- at 8:00 p.m. eastern. on saturday, september 5, live from our nations capital for the 15th annual national book festival. followed on sunday with our live and index program -- our life "in-depth -- our live "in depth" program. booktv, television for caesar -- serious readers. >> tonight on "the communicators," author and british technology pioneer kevin ashton on the creative process and how that process takes work. >> what was the process the wright brothers used? because they weren't the first
people to have the idea of building a flying machine, and they weren't the first people to try. so, why did they succeed where everybody else failed? they understood the problem they were trying to solve better than anybody else. at the end of the day, being creative is not about having ideas in the shower or a-ha m oments or lightning bolts of inspiration. it's about solving problems one step at a time, so, understanding the problem with a piece of paper, which is a problem of balance, was the key to the wright brothers starting on their course of developing flying. >> kevin ashton tonight on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. are back this morning, continuing our conversation on media and the campaign 2016, how it's being covered.
joining us from new york this morning is eric boehlert, senior fellow for media matters. let's get your reaction to the foxnews debate last week. was it fair? were the questions fair? guest: i thought it was a misrepresentation of what fox is the other 364 days of the year. they ask some tough -- they asked some tough questions. it would be a pretty boring debate otherwise. to besked some questions expected of a presidential campaign. where some may have misunderstood is, oh, "fox is up to mainstream debate." that does not include what fox is the other 364 days of the year, including megan kelly -- megyn kelly. you are supposed to ask interesting questions.
that's what you get paid for. host: did they ask the right questions? guest: in general. i didn't hear anything about climate change. hear anything about other issues that you could almost guarantee would come up in a debate. i thought the early round of questions -- that was the first debate, the jv debate. the first line of questioning, why are you so unpopular, why are you here, then they got into more substantive questions. so, i thought the questions were ok. i didn't hear a lot about the economy or climate change, but they do have six or seven debates. i assume they will get to topics like that which are of rising interest -- of pressing interest. host: we were just talking with tim graham of media center. he said, at least those candidates on the republican side are answering ashton's desk questions from the media. where is hillary clinton --
answering tough questions from the media. where is hillary clinton? guest: she pretty regularly takes local questions. the dnc has announced half a dozen debates that start next october. i think that meme has kind of evaporated. she is taking questions. bernie sanders is taking questions. if you look at just the politics of it, often if you are in the front, you don't rush out to get a lot of media attention, for better or worse. these republicans, people like chris christie or ted cruz, are desperate for attention. the 2012ey during campaign, during the height of the primary season, did not take questions for 35 days, but we did not see this sort of constant media attention. when is mitt going to take a question? i understand the press once questions answered. i think there is -- the press
wants questions answered. i think there is a slight double standard when it comes to hillary clinton. host: are you an arm of the hillary clinton campaign? guest: no. we have been doing this 10 years. hillary was a senator when we started, john kerry was running for president. media matters was instrumental asdebunking such folks veterans for truth. i love this conspiratorial talk. if you are a progressive and you stand up to the media, if you do fact checking, if you push back on this information, you are immediately part of this conspiracy. conservatives have been doing this for 40 years, and nobody thinks they are attached to a campaign for anything like that. democrats and progressives got tired of being run over by the press. al gore -- "the washington press
press washington essentially declared war on his candidacy. he did not have infrastructure to fight back. now there is. posting video, posting transcripts. that's what we've been doing for 10 years. host: what do you see your role in this campaign? where is coverage missing or wrong? guest: sure, it has gone wrong in a couple ways. going back to my comments about actions at the debate -- about questions at the debate, to say there is too much horse racing would be the understatement. we don't really see policy debate, policy agenda. i know you were talking at the end about bernie sanders coverage. to me, most of the bernie sanders coverage is, how does he affect hillary? what does hillary have to do about bernie sanders? instead of treating bernie
sanders as bernie sanders. he is an incredibly bright, articulate, veteran legislator with interesting ideas. bernie just cover sanders? why does everything have to be in the context of a horse race? on the hillary clinton side, i'm not the first to suggest there is something going on between the president and hillary clinton. -- the press and hillary clinton. very antagonistic. i think it would be great if the press dropped the feud coverage and just sort of coverage desk covered what she is saying. covered what she is saying. what sort of president would she be? early on, we are going to see a lot of pointless coverage. when she ordered lunch at chipotle and that was a news story for three or four days -- that does not need to be a news
story for three or four days. host: howard is a first in california, a republican. good morning. you are on the air. caller: good morning. good morning, sir, to you. miss the chance to tell you how great of a job you are doing. i can remember a few years ago when you started out. a bit on the nervous sigh. -- side. but you handle the politics of either side so well. always fair and always with a smile. thank you so much for your effort. i really appreciate it. i know c-span -- i'm a political junkie. let me get your guest. foxnews handles the news 364 days out of the year, and maybe right onhey got it the debate.
i have two questions. how would you describe msnbc's news broadcasts as compared to fox content-wise? the second question is, you know, the story that really sticks out in my mind with secretary clinton is a story answerednever been yet, and i'm sure it will before the election, and that is how she thinks she could have a private server in her own home in the state of new york. host: ok, howard. we will take those. guest: the first question, by the people always likes to say that msnbc is the liberal version of fox news. i think there are a lot of differences. is hostedrning show
by a former republican congressman. i don't see any democratic congressmen on fox. fox news has taken over the republican party. look at the debate. roger, the night before, went over the polling and decided who was going to be invited to the debate -- the main debate and who was going to be invited to the second debate. has chronicled for years how, essentially, the republican party has handed over its branding and marketing to ask news -- to fox news. media matters calculated that they devoted 40 hours to interviewing republican candidate. msnbc does not run the democratic party. msnbc does not essentially regurgitate 24/7 republican talking points. so, that's one key way.
the server story is interesting. when the state department decided they were going to have this review and they wanted to get all the e-mail from former secretaries of state, they contacted hillary clinton. she said, i have these private e-mails. i will hand over 30,000. 30,000 are private. i'm not going to hand over those. they also contacted secretary connell. he said, they're all gone. there seems to be something of a double standard. hillary clinton has done what her predecessor did, except she actually handed over tens of thousands of e-mails. host: chris christie was on fox news, asked about the coverage of the clinton e-mails versus controversy in his state over that bridge. here goes. [video clip] a lot of attention on hillary
clinton and the referral to the fbi. did you see as much coverage on not as you did -- on not as you did for the bridge gate -- on that as you did for the bridgegate? mr. christie: i'm waiting for the story. we know it is completely biased, unfair, disparate treatment. the fact is it should be looked into against hillary clinton. there should be fair coverage of it. instead of overblown, biased, unfair coverage. with her, they give her a pass. [end clip] host: eric boehlert, your reaction? guest: that's an interesting four months of a pass. if he wants to find out the articles and 80 segments -- and tbv segments that have been done
about the e-mails, he will find a pile. the idea that the e-mails are to some kind of conspiracy. nothing remotely close to this came true after years of investigation of obama with benghazi. the idea that we will truly see the character -- we will see the true character of hillary clinton, we haven't seen anything like that. megyn kelly referred to a criminal indictment that might be pending against hillary clinton. there is no such thing. the fbi is following the law. people in the information services will -- it will follow up on questions that people in the information services had about security. you turn on fox news and she
might be indicted. thehris christie thinks press has gone easy on hillary clinton, he kind of hasn't been paying attention for the last seven months. host: kevin is next in iowa, a democrat. caller: thanks for taking my call, greta. eric, thanks for media matters and for your service. i do watch fox news as a democrat and i kind of laugh at the media research center when they go on there. mr. graham, he didn't say -- when romney was on there in 2011, the fox news went after .im after an interview mitt romney was complaining after the interview. he wasn't too happy with the interview. could you comment on that, please? guest: i do remember it.
i happened to be doing some research and came upon it. mitt decided to have a sitdown interview. very rusty -- he was asked normal questions about his policy. romney was facing battles about flip-flop. he was asked about his health care plan in massachusetts. romney got very flustered and said "this is a very unusual interview" and things like that. this is the fox news that, 12 months later, a short its readers that mitt romney was going to run -- assured its readers that mitt romney was going to win in a landslide. mitt romney did have that someone uncomfortable interview in 2011 with fox. news wasfox essentially the marketing arm of
the romney campaign. host: ohio is next, bonnie, an independent. go ahead. caller: hi. you know, the media almost had me convinced to vote for trump in this primary, although i really can't because i'm an independent. ohio doesn't allow you as an independent. successful,e, he is he is in business. mind, i'mk of my thinking, didn't he go bankrupt? in the debate, yeah, he went bankrupt four times. but the needy is not emphasizing other people like hasek -- kasich, who did not go bankrupt. governing inhe is manner, but also in a non-republican manner. he cares about all of the people.
i'm just saying that the media when it comested to trump. it is sad that people are buying into the trunk who doesn't -- the trump who doesn't really care about the country. he cares about himself. host: what did you make of the governor's answer on gay marriage? that's getting headlines, that reveals a that he change in the gop views of gays. caller: if you know somebody who is gay, you're going to love that person. i believe in traditional marriage. i'm not a pro gay person. but i can understand. you lovedy is gay and that person, you are not going to change your love. you might change her attitude toward them, but you are not going to change your love for that person -- change your
attitude toward them, but you are not going to change your love for that person. host: sorry, i didn't mean to cut you off, bonnie. eric, what do you think? fad,: it was just "he's a no one is going to take him seriously." then five days ago, pulling at 30% in the republican polls, oh, maybe we should cover it seriously. the beltway press lost touch with the republican base how far to the right and, frankly, how radical to the right a lot of those voters have become. a dominant theme was "trump is a fad," and now they have to recalibrate. i hope there will be more substantive coverage of what he thinks, what kind of president he would be, and, certainly, his business background. it is a little tough.
the doesn't seem to indicate what kind of president he would be -- he doesn't seem to indicate what kind of president he would be. it has been celebrity coverage, much the way they cover hillary clinton. they sort of treat her as a celebrity. hopefully, we will get beyond that with trump and get down to basic campaign coverage. host: as joe biden jumps into the race, what will it be like -- what will coverage of him be like? bloomberg observes, "the irresistible narrative of a father running to fulfill his cancer stricken son's deathbed wish" would all but guaranteed "many -- guarantee "many weeks, if not months of soft coverage." thinking of what hillary clinton -- guest: thinking of what hillary clinton has gone through, i'm
not sure about the biden story. that was with an anonymous source. "the new york times" treated that as news, and they jumped all over it. if he got in, it would be more bad news for hillary clinton, meaning the campaign coverage would be awful for her. the clinton will is -- clinton rule is kind of all news is bad news for hillary clinton. it would be great for the press. they were kind of historical that clinton might get a coronation. now bernie sanders is running. up in armsis not about that, in part because he runs a positive and pain -- positive campaign. but they are desperate for a horse race. they would love joe biden in the
race. it has been eight days since and it hascolumn, been absolutely nothing to suggest any of it is going to happen. host: the washington times -- "the washington times" headline, "two failed presidential bids goocould haunt biden." caller: i want to say this quickly. i like lincoln chafee and jim webb. we don't need another clinton, nor another bush. my other comment is about the governor. we used to have a good steak in new jersey -- good state in new jersey. everybody i know can't stomach chris christie. i'm proud to say i've never voted for him. nobody watches fox news. what the heck? where is jon stewart? that made me sad.
and then bruce springsteen performed for him. frank pallone is our congressman. host: an independent scholar -- caller. did you want to say something, eric? guest: i want to talk about chris christie. i think it's ironic. if you look at the d.c. press, two or three years ago, they peered over the landscape and said, chris christie is going to be a superstar. he is authentic. we love it when he screams of people -- screams at people. they could not have been more wrong. points in his approval rating in under two years. fema likely leave office with approval ratings in the low -- he will likely leave office with a low ratings in the low -- with approval ratings in the
low-20's, high-teens. host: what you make of how the media is covering the public policy debates taking place in washington at the capital? guest: it is kind of depressing. media matters has written extensively on the topic of climate change over and over. the lack of coverage, the lack of serious coverage. economic news, the lack of serious coverage. the problem with the press is, particularly with the obama administration, they have not come to grips with the radical obstructionism of this republican party. you talk about the issues being debated in washington. essentially, there are none. the federal government sort of ceased to exist years ago in terms of legislation being crafted, people debating, bills being passed. the republican party on obama's inauguration day decided "we are going to try to stop everything." and the press, for years,
blamed obama. why can't he figure out mitch mcconnell? why can't he get republicans to come across to his side? it's because they decided they weren't going to do it, period. there are no -- few, if any policy debates anymore. and i think the press has kind of given republicans a pass. they adopted this radical obstructionism, unlike anything we have ever seen. look, george bush was essentially when it president -- essentially appointed president by the supreme court. the first thing democrats did was help him pass no child left behind. i think the press has missed the story for going on seven years. host: fort lauderdale, florida, independent. you are on the air with eric boehlert, senior fellow at media matters. caller: i want to say thank you to c-span.
i appreciate the craft. a few minutes ago, i was feeling like throwing my shoe through the television screen. this goes to show that you guys support.both sides my question or comment for mr. boehlert, and it is what prompted me to call in originally when mr. graham was on. the lady called in about how the movement hastter been giving bernie sanders trouble. she said she had no proof, no evidence. but she came up with "i think hillary clinton is promoting this." mr. graham instead of saying, this is crazy to even be talking this way, used this as a way of going off on hillary clinton. this is the problem with these crazy right wingers and their
press defenders, guys like tim spoutingat keep left-wing press, left-wing press, when it doesn't exist, and going off of beliefs rather than facts. and when someone comes up with rings, -- things, don't run with it. host: i believe she was a bernie sanders were order -- sanders reporter, right? caller: i think she was a republican. my point was, out of nowhere, she comes up with really clinton -- with hillary clinton is the one causing this, sending these guys after bernie sanders, and the graham freak ran with it instead of saying "that's absolutely asinine." host: all right, eric boehlert. guest: the clintons are a magnet for conspiracy.
there are rules that apply to the clintons that don't apply to other politicians. one of them is "every fantastic claim should be treated as true until proven otherwise." i'm not sure this claim in particular is going to be treated as true by the tsipras, but it will certainly -- by the d.c. press, but it will certainly be treated as true by things like rush limbaugh. they are of mandate for kind of wild conspiracies and always assuming the worst. host: cape coral, florida, bob, a republican. caller: thank you for the great format. i have been watching a couple years. wintersto florida two ago to take care of my disabled siblings. it has been tough, but florida has been nice. it is hot. host: you are listening to you, bob. caller: my issue -- we are liste
ning to you, bob. caller: my issue -- i think trump is a great catalyst for facing -- for the issues facing this nation. everyone i know is suffering and struggling. i think that trump is right. we are being pitted against third world immigrants in our economy. i think at some point we have to come together and realize this is a travesty. i think it is time for the bush-clinton era to end. the media is really way off-base. they haven't got caught up with the people. the people will -- kasich was good. i'm a gay american, too, by the way, and a republican. kasich is a great guy. that even elizabeth
warren comes out of -- out a head of the career criminals in washington. thank you. host: eric boehlert your thoughts -- eric boehlert, your thoughts? guest: i think on trump and immigration, the people will decide. he seems to be on the harsh and hateful rhetoric. in terms of integration -- immigration, the views have changed away from where from is pithere trump is trying to people against one another. host: a republican. hiter: the guy from florida on a lot of what i was going to say. i would like to first think c-span -- first thank c-span. if you are turning on the news to fox news or msnbc, you are lying to yourself and begging to be like to -- be lied to.
when you are seeking opinions instead of facts, that's you thethe lady -- people flike lady from ohio. i would like to point out that hillary clinton is probably the most savvy candidate. the media has been hounding her and bill clinton since 1992. they made a little bit of money on health bill. every, single thing. they can't have something for dinner without the media scrutinizing what it was, literally. i think right-wingers are just seeking to be victimized by the media. they say, oh, the media is not covering this or that, like benghazi. well, obamaas,
didn't call it terrorism. well, he did. four americans died in benghazi. rthey -- they did. more americans died in the anthrax attacks in 2001. george bush claimed there had been no more attacks, -- in 2011. george bush proudly claimed there had been no more attacks, despite those five deaths of the anthrax attacks. host: ok, jon. mr. boehlert. guest: i think he makes a lot of good points. the clintons have an unusual relationship with the press, as he says. they have been the topic of endless scrutiny, more so than any other political couple. and yet, instead of coming to the conclusion that they have
been vetted or this is their career or they have been extreme and successful or this is their agenda -- they have been extremely successful or this is their agenda, they are convinced there is something that is going to take them down. i wish they would cover the clintons, specifically hillary clinton, fairly. no one is asking for any breaks. just cover her as the democratic front-runner. both have" fox -- written articles about how the press' goal is to take down hillary clinton. and that statement did not create any uproar or push back. that's an extraordinary ace to be to have the campaign press -- extraordinary place to be to have the campaign press dedicated to taking down the front runner. you don't see articles about how the press can't stand scott walker or jeb bush.
this is a uniquely democratic phenomenon. by definition, it is not fair. that's what people are looking for, a little fairness. , can hillaryehlert clinton contribute to this coverage when she has something like a separate e-mail system wasn't giving the state department access to those e-mails so that they could keep them? did she contribute to it with a lack of transparency and not having sitdowns with media, doing interviews and taking the tough questions? how do you respond to that? point,i understand the but the e-mail story was a story. that was back in march. now it is incorporated by republicans into the benghazi committee. it is now morphing into a hillary e-mail committee.
we have been leaking information to the press. let's talk about the biggest mistake, the biggest blunder, the biggest embarrassment of this campaign season. campaigngh it wasn't a article, per se, it was "the new front page going with a false accusation of hillary being the target of a criminal investigation. they had to walk it back even before people picked it up. they hosted it -- they posted it online thursday night. they had to walk it back friday morning. nothing in the article turned out to be accurate. i think it was based on the fe vered attempt to try to take down hillary clinton. that article was obviously resting. -- rushed in. he did not have good sources -- it did not have good sources. it did not get any democrats for comment. "the new york times" is still desperately trying to turn
it into a criminal investigation, july going to august, that's not really in proportion to the story. obviously, they embarrassed themselves usually. anwas called "a travesty," institutional failure that you just don't see this often. it is this breathless pursuit of the clintons that you just don't see. host: good morning. go ahead. caller: why isn't there any coverage of the jonathan pollard, the israelis by, -- the israeli spy, in the news? host: there was a headline recently about him getting out of prison in november. caller: yes, but that's the only coverage there was on it. given at that he is pass? why is israel was given a pass
when it comes to the news? host: eric boehlert, do you have any thoughts on that? do you think there is a bias there? guest: i don't all about bias. i was surprised -- i don't know about bias. i was surprised there wasn't more coverage. it was kind of overshadowed from the larger debate about iran -- the iran nuclear agreement. it certainly got overshadowed by the trump media mania. i think it was undercovered a little bit. host: molly, california, a republican. caller: good morning. i'm looking forward to what this gentleman is about to see happen in a total and complete repudiation of the progressives in america and his channel, and i wish him luck with his eight viewers. host: what are you talking about? we are talking with media
matters, the watchdog group, and their website. media matters -- mediamatter s.org. she isn't there anymore. an independent in new york, you are on the air. question or comment? caller: i had a comment. i've listened to quite a few colors. -- callers. donald trump speaking about how america is not great anymore and how he is going to restore things. by any statistical analysis, it doesn't make sense. economy.$16.5 trillion it sounds to me like the people who aren't doing well in this country don't understand how capitalism works. i'm a bernie sanders supporter. they are searching for a demigod to solve problems -- demigogue to solve problems.
the average american does not understand the problems in this country, that it's institutional. guest: i think you've hit on a point in terms of -- you look into the conservative media. hasobama administration been a disaster, the economy is awful, we don't have a future. at media matters, we talk about the bubble, life inside the fox news bubble, life inside the echo chamber. chamber, america is truly on -- in the echo chamber, america is truly on its last legs. 34% of republicans still think obama wasn't born in america. pundit after pundit told them romney was going to win in a landslide, because fox news and rush limbaugh had just spent four years documenting how obama was supposedly this monster and trader. none of that -0- and traitor.
none of that was accurate. demagoguery i think is a good word. it is supposed to run counter of the conservative values that describe the republican party. host: a democrat from pennsylvania you are on the air -- from pennsylvania, you are on the airway eric boehlert. -- the air with eric boehlert. caller: my question is the unfairness of -- with trump, it is unfair, i jumped right they on him about what he said about women. the next thing was about hillary. they aree it comes on, talking about hillary.
you have to start at the beginning. i was in the service myself. you can't just put it on hillary. you can't go to the end of the horse race. you have to start at the beginning. host: ok. eric boehlert? guest: i think the trump coverage has been a godsend for the rest, -- press, but also very problematic. it looked like it would be a rather dull summer in terms of the campaign. he delivered this godsend of a story, but he has provided them challenges again. they initially said, he is not important, we are not going to pay attention to him, and now he is the republican front-runner. they have to start looking at the substance. they have to start taking a closer look at some of the other candidates. i talked about the hillary into an coverage -- the hillary
clinton coverage. we've seen, time and again, her favorables go down a few points. a poll yesterday had jeb bush falling to sixth place. it did not get much news coverage from what i saw. trump has eviscerated a couple of the republican ended its -- republican candidates. we see a lot of shoulder shrugging in a way that we don't on the democratic side. host: a republican from texas, go ahead. caller: my comment is, i think the republican party, what they object to is to get rid of donald trump. that's why megyn kelly and chris went at him so hard. they want to get rid of him because they are afraid of him. host: eric boehlert, what do you think the agenda was for fox? eric boehlerguest: i don't know.
fox has a very complicated relationship with trump. the got the most coverage for two months -- he got the most coverage fror two months. interviews.awning some of the hosts personally vouched for him, he is a great guy. is roger trying to take him down? no one really knows. it goes back to our first call. no channel running the democratic party the way fox news is running the republican party. in 2011, they joined forces with donald trump to launch the birther charade for several months. they gave him a national platform.
the republican party at that point could have said this is so out of bounds, we want nothing to do with donald trump, he doesn't reflect the republican party, but they went all in because fox led. there is no off switch. they've created this kind of chaotic campaign. now it seems to be beyond their control. the republican party seems to be paying a very deep price. once you start this demagoguery, it is hard to turn it off. now what is fox going to do? i don't know. but fox is running the republican party. host: for more on how the media is covering this campaign, you can go to mediamatters.org. you can follow them on twitter. thank you for your time this morning. guest: my pleasure. host: we are going to switch years, stop talking about stopics -- switch gears, talking about politics, and turn our attention to how your money how your taxt and
dollars are being spent on broadband coverage to rural areas with tony romm of "politico." we will be right back. tonight on "the communicators," author and british technology pioneer kevin ashton on the creative process and how that process takes work. >> why did the right brothers fly first -- the right brothers -- the wright brothers fly first? they weren't the first people to try. why did they succeed where everybody else failed? and the answer is they understood the problem they were trying to solve much better than anybody else. and at the end of the day, being creative is not about having ideas in the shower or aha
moments or lightning bolts of inspiration. it's about solving problems one step at a time. so, understanding the problem of the piece of paper, which is a problem of balance, was the key for the wright brothers starting on their course that ultimately led to them flying. >> kevin ashton tonight on "the communicators" on c-span2. host: and we are back. oru w -- our weekly "your money" series continues. joining us is tony romm of "politico," to talk about how your tax dollars are being spent on broadband access in rural areas. here is the story, "wired to
fail." let's begin with the rural utilities service. what is it? guest: is a very little-known agency housed within the sprawling department of u.s. agriculture. homes and to wire communities with electricity. many of these areas did not have electricity. private companies did not want to spend the money to bring electricity to these towns. fast-forward many decades later, a new name and a new mission, it is working in broadband. rural utilities service has not done a good job at managing its investments. the towns and communities on the run side of the digital divide do not have the better service. host: does the goal of broadband access in rural committees matchup with the original mission of the rus? guest: that's the perez cicely -- that's precisely the question
folks have been asking for many years. you have to look back at the clinton administration, when rus began to do its work in broadband. with the story we focused on, we looked at the 2009 stimulus, the american reinvestment and recovery act. as part of that package, the rural utilities service was given $3.5 billion, over the objections of some in the white tose and on capitol hill begin to bring access with loans and grants across the country. the program was supposed to be finished by the end of september, 2015. all of the money has to finish being awarded by the end of next month. hundreds of millions remains unspent. many of the projects that were supposed to complete construction have not done that. they have to figure out how many of those 297 objects -- projects
are on pace to finish construction by the end of the year. isn't to say that there isn't a need in the united states. there is a serious digital divide. there is need for those broadband investments, but the agency has not done its work in ensuring that happens. who isonathan edelstein, at the rural utilities service. here is a quote from him. "these investments in broadband will connect -- what went wrong? guest: that is certainly not the number that r.u.s. expects to connect these days. he has since left the agency. he was there when the r.u.s. was writing his rules for the stimulus program. there was a series of delays,
problems with oversight. the fact that its responsibilities were monumental for a tiny agency. wire anywheret close to the 7 million americans oncece -- americans it promised it would. hundreds of thousands of rural americans who simply were not going to get broadband access from the get-go. not of the awardees have made the progress they once promised the agency. we are no longer talking about 7 million rural americans. we are talking about maybe a few hundred thousand who might get access to this within the next five years. the bull posts -- the goal posts have essentially changed. the number was never accurate in the first place. those were the number of homes --ey could theoretically
we are staring down a key deadline where many of these projects will be built as proposed -- will not be billed as proposed. host: we're talking about access across rural america. was originally set up for utilities, electricity, now being involved, expanded over the decades take on broadband. specifically, the 2009 stimulus money, 3.i billion dollars -- $3.5 billion, that's what we are talking about today. 300 approved projects have not drawn down the full amount of awarded money. more than 40 projects never got started. the projects were supposed to be completed by june of 2015. guest: there were a couple deadlines. they have all shifted. about half of the projects have not run down their awards, which is a considerable number -- have
not drawn down their awards, which is a considerable number. they were supposed to be finished by june. the money had to be spent by september. the construction doesn't appear to have been done by the end of june. many of these projects are racing to spend what cash remains. if they don't, that money gets returned to the treasury -- hundreds of millions of dollars in very rare broadband aid that won't be spent in the communities that need it most. host: $3.5 billion. how much has been spent? ofst: we have spent a couple billion. host: what is going on in rural america that makes it difficult to bring broadband to these areas? why were 40 projects canceled before they even got started? guest: is difficult to build internet in areas -- it is
difficult to build internet in areas that don't have it. we are talking about hanging fiber lines on poles where 2/3 of the year it is so cold that the ice takes down the wires. in some of these places, we are not talking about millions of residents, we're talking hundreds. the price is sometimes too high for consumers. there are lots of obstacles to building broadband in these communities, and that is what is contributing to a staggering digital divide between rural americans and others. about half of rural americans do not have broadband in the way the fcc defines it, 25 megabits per second to download. in real people terms, that means maybe you can conference -- videoconference seamlessly with employees and friends. committee cannot download -- you may be cannot download the most onerous lessons in a way that would allow you to complete those lessons on time.
it's a serious divide. lots of obstacles there, lots of real problems caused by the fact that companies have been unable or unwilling to invest on top of that. one of the programs has not helped. host: what does it mean for competitiveness in this country? the unitedly in states it means that there are fewer providers sometimes in many of these locales. if you listen to groups like public watchdog and free press here in d.c., they tell you that no competition means higher prices for consumers, less innovation, and slower speed. globally that sometimes means that businesses are not willing to locate here. county, minnesota, in the northeast woods of the states --
it is an old mining town. for a lot of folks they go up there and take these high death photographs of lake superior nearby, then they go online and they cannot upload the photos without it taking two hours because the internet connection was so bad. that project has not really gone according to specification. it has encountered many objections. it has struggled with its rural regulator. as a result, folks are leaving town and not setting up shop. it is an aging community. when you talk about competitiveness, the real-life implications means that does this is moved sometimes. -- means that businesses move sometimes. highlight, $66.4 million, what do you mean by that percent drawn? guest: that number up skiers the
fact that millions of dollars of that original have not been touched and that is millions of dollars the program needs to build out service to the roughly 16,000 residents located in the county and the nearby areas that were part of that project. that eventually hurts taxpayers, by the way. if the project does not work out to the scale that was originally proposed, much of the reward is a government loan. if the network does not get built and cannot pay the government back? taxpayers are on the hook for that. at the same time they are seeking millions of additional dollars from the fcc. this stuff mixes in and when you don't charge properly, those communities ultimately get hurt. host: let's get the viewers involved. -- does this explain why taxes are half of my phone bill? [laughter] help: there are fees that the fcc fund access in areas that don't have phone service or broadband service.
those dollars are very essential. without them they could not provide that access to rural americans who need it most. the fcc is working to retool that program to make it more fit for the digital age. if you talk to folks, democrats and republicans alike tell you that it is a universal service that is generally important to get americans the broadband that they need. host: james, thanks for hanging on the line. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i wanted to ask the young lady that is there also .bout this broadband stimulus what is the difference between this stimulus money going to this particular organization, the presidency and politicians running it. , whento the young lady
you have other guests, other politicians on, i noticed that when i made a statement about all the money that is being sent to these other countries to help stimulate their countries, i said all the money that was theg to help reestablish mobile car dealerships when they broke down, i got a lot of feedback on the american people who have been suffering. the middle class and no class through sixffering -- through three administrations. why is it that they cannot give the american people a stimulus of at least one million or $500,000 for every american to not only help the business
world, but also help the middle class and the people who don't have any money. your point,k we got talking about stimulus money in general. bailing out the big companies and not helping out the middle class. was this initiative aimed at them middle-class -- the middle class? guest: this was specifically aimed at rural america. in the $800 billion package that was ultimately advanced by congress in february of 2009, it was incredibly controversial. republicans on the one hand did not like the idea of government funding these public works projects. others really wanted districts and states to take home a slice of the cash. democrats and republicans do not see eye to eye about the rolling broadband and funding competitions. as the previous caller said, using taxpayer dollars to do so. we are talking about who this
was targeting. rural story we focus on america. making sure that average, everyday rural americans, those businesses and mom-and-pop shops have the access that they find in the major cities. eddie, massachusetts, republican. hi. caller: good morning. once you broke up at&t, which ine you universal service conjunction with baby bells, no one wants to build a cable to a small town. it's just not profitable. that's why you have the problem now. volumes neutrality, the of these companies, they cannot handle it. thank you. very important points there in telecom policy. the first is that it is very expensive to build out these talked about.e there is a reason that lake county did not have broadband
access in minnesota. when folks cannot get out of their houses, it is harder to put up cables. it kept freezing, the cables kept falling down. on the issue of net neutrality, i think that folks have disagreements on whether that affect prices. it is this idea that all internet traffic should be treated equally. comcast saying that we will slow down your video but let you access cnn.com faster. saying that the sec's new rules were -- will hurt, but the obama administration strongly disagrees. host: we are talking with tony ism of politico, his story "wired to fail." spentovernment has not the money for getting access to rural communities." donald, michigan, you are up next.
caller: i have an curious for years now. remember back when the twin towers were intact. , 9:10, before the attack september 10, donald rumsfeld held a press conference. at that press conference he left out the news that he cannot $2.3 trillion. has that money ever been found? , this is not an issue you have covered. guest: certainly not. 9/11,e of the issues on police officers and firefighters, having access to this technology. the wireless coverage was unreliable and you had these officers and firefighters unable to talk to each other. the solution to that would not come for many years and that
project is now underway and that is an important telecomm link 9/11. host: -- link to 9/11. host: are they getting the bandwidth that they need? are they doing it? 2012, after more than one decade of asking for help from congress, finally lawmakers delivered in 2012 a network called first in that -- first net. a high-speed way for police officers and firefighters to communicate no matter where they are, so there is not that jurisdictional issue when a call from one area goes to another. that is a multiyear progress test process and we are finally starting to deal with them. host: santa fe, new mexico, steve. thank you forer: taking the call. i want to shift your focus to the 200 plus predominantly
indian eskimo villages in rural alaska on the coast. as you know, with global warming and the following of the arctic thawing following -- of the arctic ocean, things are transferring towards shipping and transport. what is the state of those rural areas of alaska, in the present and for the future? great question. a lot of lawmakers want alaska to get more help from the federal government. back in the day they spent a lot of time pressing chairman wheeler and others to provide greater aid to the state just given its geographic challenges, but you are right, there is a renewed focus in d.c. on that and it is part of the conversation we've had about the universal service fund. in your investigation, did
you find that the failure to deliver to some of these areas was due to politics? politicians interfering and saying -- give more here to my area? it happened because of politics and it sort of fell victim to politics. for years and years, inspectors general and the government accountability office had pointed out serious problems with this program. ig found that hundreds of millions of dollars in u.s. loans had gone to communities that had levels of broadband access, the opposite of the program. senator harkin and others, many from rural minded states, really to getr our u.s. -- rus his money anyways. but many of the projects fell back to politics as well. on the one hand you had
incumbent telecom companies fighting hard against these investments. media, is one of the providers in lake county. adamantly opposing what was being done there, they wrote a flurry of letters to congress, launched investigations and dragged folks -- who launched investigations and dragged folks up there. once it was no longer as politically sexy of a topic, lawmakers simply stop holding those hearings at a critical time in the agency. tucson, arizona, barbara. you are next. caller: to reiterate about the various companies like at&t working against small towns, my hometown in kansas had high-speed internet that they needed to run their public utility. and when they wanted to extend that service throughout the town
, they asked at&t if they would like to do this and they said that they could not recoup their money fast enough to do that and they tried to become a google city and that of course went to kansas city. so, once they started to go about it, they needed to do some bonding to do it. legislatorsious into be got tried to stop that. you know, we are going to be a gig economy. we need a gig, 10 times -- which is 100 times faster than regular internet. mean, theaster -- i new norm is only going to be 10 times faster. these small towns need this to ,ot only run their hospitals but also to create an economy.
i wanted to make a comment. host: barbara, take a look at the map. this is the percentage of the county population with download per secondmegabytes or greater. the brown maroon area across the country, that is where 0% of the thatation has internet fast. the gray areas, the real dark black areas are where it is 100%. take a look at the map. you can see which states have greater download speeds compared to the rural areas across the country that are looking at zero , zero download speeds of 25 megabytes per second or greater. that is the standard that the sec puts on broadband access. that is what they would like to see the country at. the comments brought up by the caller are exactly one of the problems that many communities are facing right now
, rural and otherwise. one of them involves public utility, local government offering broadband service along with what a comcast or at&t might offer. these are serious political battles. telecom carriers don't want that to happen. they have complained to congress and the sec has tried to break the logjam to pave this way -- pave the way for cities like chattanooga to do that. these are the issues coming up right now as they look to not have that competition in their own backyard. host: linda, democrat, tennessee. high, linda. caller: -- hi, linda. caller: there are federal subsidies for infrastructure that went into the u.s. since american history began. from canals to railroads, the california farm system, nothing
about this was new. ok, the second question is state and federal laws for to the effort for broadband expansion. i have two examples. the federal 1986 federal communication tax so that companies did not have to allow wires over their polls if they don't want to. in my area they are owned by two different entities. at&t and the local public utility. if someone else comes in they don't have to let them run them over the polls if they don't want to. tennessee state legislature just passed a law that permit -- fromds taxpayer dollars going as seed money to a new public utility. you cannot use taxpayer dollars to run a gas line and you cannot use them to start a local broadband service.
it has to be done with private money. so, that's it. host: ok. tony? guest: that is exactly right. as you are talking about, in tennessee the ban on public dollars being used is precisely what many communities across the united dates are facing. the sec chairman, tom wheeler, he has really worked to break that logjam but republicans don't want him to have it. the issue with polls, that's the other big thing. many of the stimulus participants face that in their buildup. they had a short timeframe to hang the wires from the polls. sometimes local telecom carriers looking to stop an entrant from competing against them would use their ability to access the polls to keep a new competitor off of them. that was the biggest -- one of the biggest problems. it contributes to the broadband service in the communities that don't have it. host: republican line, good
morning. caller: good morning. i rarely ever call but i thought this might the of interest. your guest has not brought this up, i have seen it in advertisements all the time. dish network offers broadband service by satellite to people in remote areas. they show advertisements of people on their phones. i have watched a lot of alaska programs where people in the middle of nowhere have electricity and satellite coverage and are able to get broadband that way. they have something called -- the government offers a service that i'm sure you're familiar with. for telephone service. i know that it has been mentioned a couple of times on "the communicators," on your channel. that it is offered somehow in some fashion for people in low
income type situations. right now as we speak i have figured out a way to talk to you adapter to wi-fi 2004 pcown -- my old computer. i have combined that with lifeline and a piece of software. i am now speaking to you free of charge using my computer. [laughter] host: tony romm? guest: all of that is absolutely correct with respect to lifeline and the universal service, they are working to expand those programs. the sec gave up $100 million to carriers seeking to subsidize the construction of the infrastructure that allows some of the communities to have broadband. particularly in low income communities. the other question is satellite. always a topic of controversy in d.c..
ofy did spend millions dollars as a result of the stimulus, but many folks believe that satellite is not reliable. not fast enough, too expensive, not worth the investment right now. there is a downside to having the satellite services but for right now it is not the solution for many folks. host: how fast is the internet in this country compared to others? guest: it depends on when you look. it then comes down to price. you can maybe get fiber internet in places in texas or here in washington, d.c., but you will spend well over $100 to get that service. the united states is not number one when it comes to broadband adoption. that is one of the things have been trying to fix. most recently this new effort on the part of the white house to bring together federal agency heads to talk about what they can do to spur broadband adoption. host: who is number one?
which country and why? aest: in an of itself that is huge fight. some countries have huge government champions where they are more willing to stand up here. ask a couple of telecom folks that question and they will give you a better answer. is this virginia, democratic line? caller: [indiscernible] is -- do youo you have service in the virgin islands? who do i need to speak to to get that service down here and get what we need to upgrade our network [indiscernible] piggyback [indiscernible] broadband service in the united states virgin islands. myself work [indiscernible]
we have set up a lot of network systems. how can we bring it out here in these united its territories to the virgin islands? host: she is calling from the virgin islands. guest: i did not hear the entirety of that question. i think that you were asking about getting more funding to the virgin islands. there are folks in congress arguing to bring money back to everywhere. the problem is that congress often does not invest in broadband and when they do it winds up in the hands of agencies like the rural utilities service that make sure that those investments deliver the results that those folks are looking for. host: plenty of talk about creating a whole new different agency just to focus on this because of its predominance in our economy as it continues to grow. there are plenty of
agencies that do work on this. the federal communications division has worked on telephones and broadband, they have a multimillion dollar fund every year that provides access to both. a third one is ntia, another little-known acronym here in d.c. and the commerce department spends billions of dollars on things like computer centers and wiring networks in various parts of the country. individual agencies across the government have grant that they handle to make sure that schools have access to the internet and ,hat computers are available reservations and so forth. it is very teasing in the united states. effort tobeen an unify that and the united states. earlier this year the white house commission what was basically a past horse of agency had -- task force of agency heads. to see what could be done on the federal level, even without congress. one of the things they have recently started looking at his
high-speed broadband internet access in public housing projects so that when these things are upgraded, these connections are contemplated and wired as opposed to doing it much later down the line. that kind of collaboration is a new development. some of that stems from the fact that congress have left his issues unresolved for many years. host: steve, good morning. i would like to address the politics this morning. many of us remember rural electrification and what a success that was. congress, their job seems to be to keep government from working. this is a typical example. rural electrification was very successful. through the privatization and deregulation and monopolization of the telecoms, they run things
now. i blame that on the american people voting for republicans. when they wake up to the fact that that is the problem, things will get better. thank you. host: tony romm? of folksthink a lot remember that history of the rural electrification administration, the predecessor to rus. there were folks the call that will show that. they felt it was un-american that the government would provide those funds to build electricity out to rural towns, but as it was hated, it was a wild success decades after its implementation, making it more striking that the rural utility service has struggled so much with broadband. when it comes to partisanship and political parties in d.c. and telecom, folks are spit -- split both ways. folks don't seem to want the sec playing as strong of a role as democrats would like.
but democrats have been in charge during expansion is -- expansions. it was a democrat in charge when comcast purchased that slightly different deal. to give an example of a democrat who was there when something like that was happening. we got this from marie on twitter -- host: paul, rhode island, democrat, but into the conversation, paul -- welcome to the conversation, paul. like to know if you have ever done any research what was developed 10 or 15 years ago where broadband could be sent down ordinary household lines. i understand it was tested in texas and extremely successful. this was 10 to 12 years ago. i researched it and the results
were that it was not cost-effective. in my opinion it would be very cost-effective for rural areas. what can you tell me about this particular system that sends broadband down house current lines right into your home, right into the wall socket? i will take your response online. host: ok, paul. guest: admittedly, i don't know the research he is referring to right there, but there are folks trying to do new things to move broadband out to new places. wireless, for example. one of the projects detailed in the story is the state of vermont. it is especially challenging to bury fiber lines in mountainsides. there they try to use wireless towers to provide high-speed raw band coverage to the more remote parts of the state but the flipside is that it is as not as fast as folks would like.
there is always a give and take. host: part of your investigation uncovered that these loans given theommunities, some of communities had default it on them. why was that? what happened -- defaulted on them? why was that? what happened? guest: it could mean a couple of things. the payer did not pay on time. or the whole thing has gone belly up. before the stimulus we experienced a rash of defaults. 40 of the 100 loans from may of 2014, many of them had canceled or been defaulted. theyme cases it is because could not find a way to pay the government. we were talking about universal service earlier. many of these borrowers take money from one agency and use it to pay back the loan from another agency. when that happens, whether is not enough to cover the cost, some experienced troubles.
the fact that it remains too high for folks to afford it, companies never recoup what they are looking for. if they cannot find a way to sell to a higher bidder, they cannot pay the government back and there are lots of obstacles here. it's the to the heart of the matter -- how much risk should the government take to build out broadband for any utility? is it acceptable for the u.s. government to build internet access to a community where they know it might fail sometimes, millions of dollars could be lost? it could potentially happen. that is the fundamental question that members of congress have not really figured out just yet. host: what comes next with your story? what are you watching for? guest: members of congress to bring the hammer down on the agency. the 2014 farm bill gave the agency more money to continue lending for grants to rural communities. in the most recent will the rules were tightened a little
bit. -- recent bill the rules were tightened a little bit. lessons do not seem to have been learned from the federal stimulus. congressman walden brought this up. others as well. raising concerns about being up to the task. but we have not heard from the house agriculture committees. that will be the committee making sure that this money is spent appropriately. oversight many years after the stimulus is done. ensuring that the money is spent , five years from now, to see of those americans actually got the service they were promised in 2009. host: thank you for being here. lawmakers are out of town, back in their districts for the congressional august recess.