tv After Words Derek Hunter Outraged Inc. CSPAN September 16, 2018 6:00pm-7:02pm EDT
socialism favorably in capitalism less favorably. >> next on booktv strand booktv strand to come up liberal columnist derek hunter offers his thoughts on how progressives influence academia, the media and pop culture to advance their agenda. he's interviewed by brent bozell, founder and president of the media research center. afterwards is a weekly interview program with relevant guest host interviewing top nonfiction authors about their latest work. >> derek, a pleasure to have you with us today. >> thank you. it's an honor to witness. we've never met although we followed each other for a long time. before talking about your book, how about something about yourself and what led you to write this book.
>> guest: i was always kind of a news junkie as a kid. i attend stop listening to music for the most part, mostly because i liked punk rock liked punk rocker now button on the radio, but i found talk radio and i started listening to that appears on a fascinating to listen to rush limbaugh in the short when i was a kid. before that there was worse williams and sally jessy raphael. there was talk enough folic i could learn something. nerdy? maybe. but upon and i found a more engaging. in college when the clinton scandal broke, i was glued to tv. i would watch hardball at watch hardball five, brit hume it fixed him a hardball at 7:00. sometimes i would even we watch hardball at 11:00. i couldn't get enough of it. all the media was given information. interviews with newspapers. several conversations about serious issues. somewhere in the mid-2000, bush hitler became a thing.
cable news morphed into the same 12 people having conversations that if they happen at a restaurant you believe, you'd move. it bothered me because i loved consuming information and it's harder and harder to find. and then you begin to see the pattern on the left in the book where it's all about appealing to emotion. it's all about keeping people angry and are afraid because the alternative is to try to sell them something, something your policies in liberal policies don't sell very well in middle america. people just want to be left alone. i thought, why are these people doing this? they're doing what doesn't work. more people watch house hunters international for cnn for example. i'm one of them. and then you begin to see if the strategy. it's certainly something that occurs to him.
a hive mind doesn't need to be given orders. they just know if i know you remember because you pointed it out in 2000 when george w. bush announced dick cheney and found himself to be vice president and suddenly the word gravitas, which i don't think you could've found in a transcript for the previous 10 years in any network newscast was everywhere. i begin to piece this together. it really isn't a conspiracy because that involves the planning. it's a mindset. you don't need to be told. everybody knows what to do. i don't know if people know this. i don't know people understand. they get the bleak malaise media bias works. the subtle way, the bias by proxy which is one of the chapters. >> its outrage, beyond bias. >> the left has an innate ability to appeal to emotion,
but the right doesn't have. we can go up there and present slide after slide in powerpoint presentations. here it is, irrefutable math. there it is. the other side will find the worst-case scenario, appeal to your emotion and so you're only one paycheck away from this happening to you. and that scares people. so the fear you remember when you are scared, just like you remember when he laughed. you don't put you don't remember the dry lecture. you forget that stuff. if you appeal to emotion, good, bad or indifferent as long as the spurs something in your brain you tend to remember it better. we have such a better message and they're able to sell future bonds to people. >> with the exception of bob dole who nobody cares about combo you know, you look at every republican president or
presidential candidate going back to eisenhower and the left at one point or another has made the accusation that get us into a war. that is the politics. i want ask you this question. to me it's fascinating. if you look at a political mold, it's always bad when you think of the tip of the spear for a political movement, you'd think congressional leaders. talking about the nancy pelosi and chuck schumer or you'd be talking about administration. we talked about hollywood. you be talking about left-wing activists. and yes, throughout your book in instance after instance after instance, the tip of the spear is the news media appear to have never seen this before. >> the news media because it's the conduit to which all of that gets to us through their.
but it's certainly the center of the funnel and it doesn't matter where it's come from good to follow their orders, disseminate the information. the ghost in the democratic leadership of the party through the media, the hollywood, science community and now they know what they're looking for in order to get publicity and more grants for self-fulfilling snake eating its own tail in its own way. the media is the center point because it's the easiest conduit and they are despite what your organization has thankfully addressed and documented for 30 years, they are trusted by a lot of people inherently. you see someone on tv, republican strategist for democratic strategist finding out what happened in north korea today. they must know what they're doing because they are on tv because there's no such job as republican strategists. i've looked. it seems really easy. all you do is talk on tv. i can't find that job.
you begin to realize that it is all you look at mtv and you convey the message that they want. are you willing to play along? it becomes kabuki theater. not brainwashing because i don't doubt that it's done for nefarious spurs as is most of the time. sometimes it's certainly it is. but it's done for convenience sake, out of laziness, out of this is what we need to this person will do it like a lego piece was not together. you need journalism. >> you are not too fond of contributors on television. explain not. >> no, i worked for the heritage foundation in early 2000. ended up in the bookstore and moved into health policy. when there was an issue on capitol hill to working on a health bill, the medical care modernization act that matter prescription drug and affair. my boss bob moffitt made a beeline to the studios of cnn,
nbc and fox so other coworkers at aei, the urban institute, policy analysts read the legislation, understand the ramifications. they knew this stuff. somewhere that stopped and here's a guy we had on yesterday talking about russia collusion. now it's talking about prescription drug prices. tomorrow he'll come on a talk about whatever is the flavor of the day is. you realize the expertise has been shut out for convenience sake. contributor ships are good and if you've got somebody really good on an issue you a lock them down, stop your competitors because it makes sense in the media is a business after all. but how do you weigh in on everything or they have no expertise and if you watch when they do the other they are weighing they are waiting and i'm wildly different things. it's hard enough to become an expert on one or two issues, but everything, international relations, international law with russia. the border, like audio time to do all this and you realize they
don't. but they're booked ahead of time. three days will come on at this time. we'll tell you the topic the day of. >> you're giving away secrets. >> i know, but it bothers me that someone who loves the show. they're experts in this town an this town and experts who know their stuff and you can disagree with their conclusions but you can't disagree with their fact and they're not getting -- but heritage foundation is not far from office networks now and the path that was beaten into the ground has now grown over because they are not coming for the experts anymore. they're coming for the people who are easy to get on the payroll who are good on tv and can they just an story 20 minutes before air and speak for three minutes at the 30,000-foot level were really nobody learns anything and that is supposed to be the purpose of journalism to educate people what's going on in the world and i don't that happening anymore. >> it's a tough call because tom johnson, the former president of cnn and i knew each other.
i was once given him a hard time time -- during the o.j. trial. he called me afterwards and that my job is to bring advertising revenue for the shareholders of this company. last year our audience went down 25%. this figure we begin the o.j. network and open up 400%. what would you do? i think that's a problem as well because the networks are doing is partially because they're catering to an audience that wants pretty faces. >> i get that they've got to pay the bills. we shouldn't be having like new jersey and publicly funded media. but there has to be a point that if you could have a network or somebody standing in an intersection yelling at passing cars, that would get pretty good numbers. not sure what convey a lot of information. it's not completely against contributors. if you want an opinion that find
comfort in the middle of a news broadcast neighboring peoples opinion that's where the problem. it's a delicate line. i understand the business model and i support the business model. but you have access to experts. nobody in the think tank will charge you to sit down for a five-minute interview. so you have the opportunity to convey information. there's information. there's very few shows, tucker carlson show. but tucker carlson has actual first-person newsmakers. somebody is introducing legislation. he'll bring a democrat. that is so rare in cable news these days that you can learn more in that hour than you can in the rest of cable news. >> here's something interesting. your answer just now was longer than a soundbite allowed on television today on the networks. think about that. 25 years ago crossfire was the big screen and evelyn says that was lowbrow, lowbrow.
but if you are a guest on crossfire committee are here to defend your position for a half an hour against people who were loaded with facts against you for mobile team of researchers. you had one hand behind your back and you had to fight. today it's two minutes. comment on this. does anybody get a real point across on television in a minute in a house? >> know, they don't. i'm guilty of it, too. you look for a way something can go by will get a network is looking for something they can clip into a 392nd clip, put in a tweet and post on facebook that will go viral. it's good for business because you get a lot of eyes on it, but it's bad for conveying information. we are in a world that moves so quickly, brent, you know this. twitter is immediate and the journalists will report first and check it out later. we can always correct day. in print once it was in the
paper you have to have it locked down because there was for the world to save. now you posted online and you can add an update and another editor's note you don't have to worry about the fact checking. you can't convey information and the people conveying information aren't all that interested in conveying information. they're more interested in being first. is the death of journalism in a lot of ways. it's democratized in a lot of ways. a lot more people can put their stories out there that i'm not sure that's necessarily good because you see fake news all over the place. you can make it out. >> speaking of fake news. let's go back to your book. micro-aggressions. you had a good time with micro-aggressions. first of all, explain what a micro-aggression is and then tried to explain to me why they just showed up and why we didn't have micro-aggression five years
ago. >> here's a trigger warning for you. a micro-aggression is some sort of offense, usually racial or gender specific better so subtle that if you and i were talking i could make progress against you and i wouldn't notice that i'd done it. you wouldn't notice i done them to some third party observer might have picked up on the subtleties of the common found some obscure way that was offensive and then coming to tell you that you should be offended about what i said. he then would become offended. this is a college campus, to make an apology and i would give you an apology. it's so subtle. the reason we have it is not somebody who's going to deny that racism exists. i don't think anybody denies racism still expects to 7 billion people on the planet, they were going to be and uphold the matter what. but we have to have knowledge that we've made significant progress. in 1929 -- in 1920 there were 160 million people in the
country in 4 million members of the from a big granddaddy racist information could that's about 3.73% of the population. in 2016 when we had 330 million people, the southern poverty law center estimated there were about 6500 members of the clan. that is a rounding error in population. to go from that in 100 years to a rounding error is amazing. put it another way to pepper the book with jokes to make a fun read for the wnba celebrated the 2016th season because of their success in attendance. the average attendance was 7644 people. that means on any given random wnba game, the least popular professional sport on the planet earth. there were 1144 more people by backing that there are members of the clan in the whole country. we should be celebrating now. we should expect a football of
the five-yard line. there still racism. that's amazing progress for society as diverse as ours is 100 years. that we are told this is a racist country and they had micro-aggressions increased something ridiculous criticizing america is the greatest country in the world and you happen to be born in scotland, somehow that's an affront to you because i'm saying you're not the greatest. would you create something like that. to keep the fuel going in the outrage machine of a horrible racist country, horribly discriminated country. >> would you agree with me that it's also a visual that sells television and that is the reason why its project did? i don't know what else is called a person who did the shooting at charlotte, north carolina. the confederate flag and that became the reason why you tear
down the statue in new orleans. it was one despicable person holding a flag. but that visual wish on everywhere. as we see the visuals of the and it virtually doesn't exist. deeply the media keeping it alive because it's a big visual? >> it's good visual and good politics. if you are people not to think rationally communicate them riled up, angry, afraid your most of the things you apologize for in your life were not things he said calmly sitting behind your desk sipping a cup of tea thinking about it clearly. you kick the coffee table on your way through the room whatever it is. emotion override logic and if you can keep people thinking the democrats spent the last two years time if it's open season on young black men. the data doesn't show that paid
the facts now show that. the media shows them because they find stories and focus on them to the exclusion of other stories. as far as what happened with dylan ruth, that little monster in the statue, i lived in baltimore at the time and never for confederate monuments. people forget maryland was a confederate state. he was unable to succeed because lincoln arrested the legislature. they tore those down and they celebrated the democratic power structure celebrated the problem. the next year with the highest number of murders recorded in history. no problem with salt, butter something the symbolism over substance which they been pointing that out. groups like the media research center. symbolism over substance d. it works. appealing to people's feeling is much easier sell. make somebody feel bad about something and then give the more you feel good about it. if you tell somebody logically
something and then you have to maybe save a little more money to be ready for retirement and that's no fun. but telling somebody to feel bad and then giving them the key to feel good and it's a revolution on these. whatever solution there's a new problem. now they're talking about having to rename capital of texas because even austin did not come out in support some mexican who wanted to end slavery. >> "newsweek" referred even though he died 15 years before the civil war. i don't know how that works but i'd like to know about it. they don't want a resolution -- the democrats demanded they be put back together.
so okay, did that. and the solution was not any two to all be released. there's never enough. they have their agenda. they're like the terminator in a lot of ways. and they will never stop until they are completely destroyed. >> i want to redo a fun quote and i want you to expand on it the double standards don't stop the scandals. liberal lecture conservatives on the tone of their rhetoric while engaging in some of the rhetoric ever to exit a human's mouth. are you suggesting hypocrisy here? >> has come im. their examples in the book with an example just recently. e.g. salzburger, the publisher, victim of nepotism ensured he earned my job who runs "the new york times." he met with the president and said wow, calling the press enemies of the people will have repercussions. you could be putting journalist weisman danger and absolutely you shouldn't threaten journalists or anybody but you
can't pretend i did a google search about this. i found several examples of "new york times" ran an op-ed by compared heads on cable news where they did the same thing. if you think calling journalists enemies of the people is bad, i could probably be down with that. was harsher than it needs to be. but when you think of calling the president of the united states hitler? we seen an example. james hodgkinson last year in virginia opening fire on republicans on a baseball field because he'd been told time and time again by the mainstream media that the republican health care plan and the repeal of replacement was going to cost upwards of 40,000 or 50,000 lines per year. if you believe that coming believe that common touch of a moral obligation, if you believe adolf hitler now resides in the white house the white house coming to a almost have a moral obligation to act? they don't cover it that way.
they don't think of it that way. they think of their own hands clean. it's apocryphal obviously. but how they don't recognize the spirit of the publisher of "the new york times" doesn't recognize the charts look were not bitterness pages that trump hasn't hitler. that is close. but i don't know how else to point it out except just to point it out. a lot of times the left gives you a tap in you a topping pattern just have to take it. you take the putter out onto the green and put it in the hole. >> i find it fascinating that culturally the left is all about moral relativism unless they themselves big, which is to oppose them, i mean right now, anyone listening to you from the left is probably thinking about this very second how much he
despises you simply because you disagree therefore you are disagreeable person. what is it about this moral certitude that so many take it off their high horse. >> it is the emotional appeal that i write about. if you believe your enemy is history's greatest monster, nothing they say is valid or nothing they do is valid and you have every right to hate them, despised and rejected and refused to listen to them. it's brilliant marketing in a lot of ways to paint conservatives as these monsters. it's wrong, alive, and dangerous hazards on the baseball field last year and i hope you don't see it again do we fear we will. but it's much easier. >> if you believe you are a, i can dismiss it out of hand. and how to counter it earlier but it or respond to it.
the charge of racism going back to that is thrown around. they're victims of racism in this country, but they're drowned out. they're the people really being heard because we are not hearing it. in a sea of if you disagree with barack obama come your races. doesn't matter if it held that position for 20 years. i oppose bill clinton. nobody made the charge then. suddenly the left found it much easier to just go run pejorative terms rather than make a coherent intelligent argument. i don't blame them. most people if they could work from the couch word. it would be a much easier life. but it's not advancing the ball. it's not advancing ability certainly not winning an argument because you get people to your side you refuse to engage. refusing to engage as the winning and we are paying a price of $21 trillion in debt winning the argument.
>> we talked about low-voltage contributors and then there's. whatsoever to low-voltage intellectuals in hollywood. it seems like you understand this. most conservatives don't understand. don't understand the power of hollywood. the daily caller understands. speech about. >> interbred bird famously said that politics is downstream from culture. you sit on the screen, small screened in the music and eventually someone will legislate something about it. it's absolutely true. when i write a column, i write two columns per week about hollywood. it's a vanity thing but a duet. there's always people there to say i don't go to the movies. i got rid of cable. i don't watch tv. but many see the culture work. congratulations. not congratulations. nothing have to go the movies every month or every week or watch a tv show coming to choose should be aware of it because it's important.
growing up most people are watching the news, reading the newspapers. they are learning about things from pop culture. if you want netflix to look at the documentary system if you just want something on you can kind of ignore and to put on a documentary comment you go in the section of netflix, there is every liberal fever dream in their. climate change is coming for you given the country's horrible racist. capitalism is evil. all these documentaries in air quotes without a disclaimer that these are documentaries. have a point of view. these are activism films, not documentaries. and then you've got the mainstream movies that sort of humor in this left-wing messages. it's not beating you over the head with it, but it's getting into your head that you don't pay attention about them find a a way to counteract that, you're going to lose in the long run
because people can quote movies much more than they can pull politicians, certainly more than anything for the news or read a study and that sticks with you. because i need a bigger boat. everybody knows that's. believe things that aren't us necessarily true. >> you had a statistic in the last little years with 62 nominees for best picture, but only two of them had more than a hundred million dollars. they're really popular. what are they about? >> they were about the liberal feel-good movies. hollywood is its own industry. they can award anybody they want. but to pretend somehow there is a message behind it. the argument was when they're
all nominees who are white service operates in hollywood. so they then change the criteria in open to voting nice and bring in more people of color were women. maybe we should make better movies. they control the money. they control what movies are made. nothing with tyler perry gives me a ton of money but it's not going to be an oscar-winning they're her phone maker because they generally aren't all that good. it may be entertaining but they're not dramas, not even particularly funny. they want to deal with the end result rather than the real problem. it's much easier than dealing with the real problem that when they make movies by minority directors they tend to fund only bad ones,, the stoner movies rather than doing a serious drama. that is change a little bit but it's ironic to be lectured on these things from hollywood.
they have no sway and it is them that are doing it. to me to movement. harvey weinstein, kevin spacey, too many people to name. that was then. that was not us. but that little trick the left does whenever they are caught doing something, remember when harvey weinstein and all the left-wing dominoes fell. the argument was this is a problem for all of us come a societal problem that we all have to address this. i didn't grab us with anybody. we didn't do this. i guarantee you the farmer in iowa didn't do this. the automaker and michigan didn't do this. it was the in new york and l.a. who did this to donate it to the democrats. that is how this sort of would solve themselves of guilt. it's a societal problem. no it's not. it's your problem. >> this i'm going to play to
you. when conservatives complain about the media, invariably they will talk about msnbc, cnn, question. who is more powerful? anybody at msnbc for stephen colbert? >> well, stephen colbert areas. msnbc goes by will. a lot of conservatives have humor hate watch msnbc kitty tour, stephanie will says something ridiculous. stephen colbert has the cover of i'm a comedian just making jokes. we saw this with jon stewart when he was on crossfire. he wanted to be a jokester and then he wanted to make a serious point and criticized tucker and when they called him out on what he does, and he says i'm just a comedian again. and if you watch these things, they intermingle fact and fiction and it's not even jokes
anymore. political speeches with applause lines, not with punchlines. you don't know that. you turn in to watch your favorite movie star in your being inundated with subtle and so it's much more powerful cowboy because of dawn every day, a lot more people watch it. it's done with humor, which is not much. he didn't remember jokes much longer than anything else. so he has much more effect give a dangerous. >> be savored a minute, what about johnnie carson, jon wayne, all these conservative republicans, why was it okay for them, but not okay for stephen colbert or jon stewart and does. >> i'm not saying it's not okay for them. >> is the same thing? >> not at all.
johnnie carson make fun of ronald reagan. his number one job was to be funny. that night he had to do a 10 minute monologue where he was funny. stephen colbert comes in and says this is in the news i want to talk about this. i want to talk about medicare for all. but recent jokes around that come a monologue piece around, where johnny would watch the news every day and make fun of everybody. jon wayne and jimmy stuart were conservative republicans. they were also on tv twice a year for five minutes apart. there's no social media appeared to did not fire her videos. it's a different world now. johnnie carson you talk about what he said the night before around the water cooler and that was it. the next day when he said the following night. >> can you imagine a dean martin roast today on a television? that was all about make you laugh but in a very irreverent way. >> it would be a hate crime. >> it would be.
don rickles would be up on charge. you just can't have fun anymore. you spend a lot of time talking about the southern poverty law center. there is a close that you get from them, which to me is shocking. i want you to comment on three different levels. the quote is this. a bias incident is speech or expression motivated in whole part by bias or prejudice. it differs from a hate crime and that no criminal activity is involved. the first question to you. how else is bias motivated other than by bias? and isn't biased prejudice? >> in a way. but not the way they define it. you have read in your beard. a psychology carrot top, you could report that is a bias
incident. in naming it as such. i'm glad you took it that way. >> someone's going to call in about a micro-aggression. >> you had 4 million members of the clan in 1920. we're down to a rounding error of the population. there's an entire industry could the southern poverty law center for solve these problems to go away. they don't want to go away. they want to keep raising the money and having the money and they will continue to redefine what the problem is and pretend they're not redefining what the problem is. a bias was instituted after the election of donald trump. remember the hate crimes are going through the roof, and outreach for the jewish community center circuiting bomb threats of his horrible and i was a huge story and then they found that they found others a formal journalist, a black eye at lewis and a jewish teenager living in israel and suddenly this or he didn't exist anymore.
for they were convicted? who knows that the media stopped covering it because it didn't fit the narrative they could be blamed. there are instances of racism, but they're not nearly as often or bacon most people are shunned. so they have to redefine as nobody being beaten in the streets because of their race and they have to redefine it down to the point if you say something like i'm an american first, that the micro-aggression. it's that level of insanity that is traded on the same level from a statistical standpoint. when you you throw it into a bowl of statistics is just a number with a bunch of other numbers to view you down, burning a cross on somebody's lawn and seen america is the greatest country in the world. the bad weight changes and you discount the weight of the bag is the actual meat on the bone. >> the word that gets me is
there is a suggestion that you write down and it's going into a book and we are keeping tabs on you. >> this happens a lot on college campuses in the left as we fetishize victimhood and they've made it something to aspire to become your primary of a hero. i've been discriminated against because of my sexuality or whatever. people aspire to it and find new and creative ways to paint themselves as victims and of course then their hero fighting of it done. you see this with a hate crime hoaxes i detail in the book. the social justice warriors if they don't get it at home or don't find it someplace else or inundated through high school and college but this country is racist, comments on the phobic and you have to go out and stop it, fight it you defy conservatives, republicans and even different people. the dust out of their classrooms everywhere. it is systemic.
the country is founded on it. they were going to change the world and fight the stuff. so they then spray paint swastikas on things. they spray paint racial slurs been reported and say look what i found and eventually as so many cases in the book that you don't hear about but then there's no follow-up, they do it because they want to raise awareness of the issue. they know it's out there but they can't find it and it doesn't click in their brain that they can't find it is supposed to be everywhere, but maybe it's not everywhere. maybe it's much less than they been told and they start to question things. the ability to question has been drummed out for so many social justice warriors that they don't know how to think for themselves anymore. >> the southern poverty law center could be considered by the left as ground zero of
wisdom. they have another term for that. this is very, very funny. i'll see it somewhere in my notes. but talking about highest incidence, you probably document 200, 300, 400 in this book where there were micro-aggressions if we wanted to call them against conservatives. do you suppose the southern poverty law center has ever addressed a single one in due process? >> no. there's no money in it for them. they know where their sugar daddies are. they've got half a billion dollars endowment, something ridiculous like that. some giant pile of money. they are not going to stray from now. if you're getting an example, a lot of money from tom stier, the billionaire who want to impeach the president and you know what he wants, you are not then going to say there's some other billionaire over here who wants the opposite of that.
we will appeal to them, too. you've got your sugar daddy and no stick with it. they don't fight poverty at all. >> 1% of their money goes to law >> agosta bogus studies may maintain websites and it goes in their pocket and they travel the country for his class business class. as a business model behind all of this. nobody does this for free. nobody's going to get up in the morning now matter how much they believe in the cause of the foot soldier does that the people running the show, heading the organization no matter how noble their cause is, they not missing a meal. they are doing already. >> in case our viewers don't know this because they've probably never heard about it, what happened with the hate crime map the southern poverty law center? what was the consequence? >> consumer research center was
shot by a guy who brought in a pub full of chick-fil-a in dagon hell-bent on killing as many people at the family research center, krishan organization that believes man is between a man and a woman. they put it together and elicited the family research center is a hate group in washington d.c. this guy went in there, follow the building manager who's a hero, who got shot, but was able to stop the would-be killer and it was all inspired by the southern poverty law center, which is the left that dotted map unfair parent website that nobody saw. nobody saw the crosshairs and gabby gifford's congressional districts and we are targeting this. that was blamed by paul krugman at "the new york times" and "the new york times" in general as behind joe buckner's killing of gabby gifford said wendy to five others out there, which is insane.
the southern poverty law center was for the most part left out the stories that the family research center. as recently as last year, "the new york times" editorial court proving they don't even read their own paper cited the crosshairs on their appearance website is the reason behind the shooting of gabby gifford's. he then had to issue a painful and embarrassing retraction. but you see how once something gets out there, it sticks with people. that is why they don't want the of the burning bro was one a shot at republicans at the baseball field inspired by progressive politics. they don't want that the shooter and family research center was inspired by this other law center. they don't want it out there because advocates out herbal stick. when "the new york times" editorial board, not some random reporter or somebody posting on twitter, and editorial signed by the board said something of a newspaper had debunked in the same issue by the way, you
realize what we are really up against. when something gets into the consciousness of the public, it's tough to get it out. >> to me, going back to dylan rove, the horrific i, the man who committed the racist murders, he was a supporter motivated by an organization. they say could do it. i'm not suggesting that at all. but he was following the big hits of the hate math and take it or horrible -- they make it goes back to if you believe it'll fill a room falls falls to 1600 pennsylvania avenue, don't you have a moral obligation to act. if you believe these organizations isn't very diplomatic in the way the label these groups. it is paid. it is not thereby, they feel this issue. it is you are either good or bad and if you believe you're good you have to be against bad.
you label the family research council, this evil group that is harming people even know what they're doing is holding opinions. if you're off in the head, you can see i have a moral obligation to act. we have to stamp out he appeared i have a chance to stamp out he then you go and try to do it in the southern poverty law center acts as a dealer coming blackjack dealer says we are done. we didn't have anything to do with this in the media helped him staked out the backdoor. they've they ignore the connection the fact he had a printed version of the map on him. he said that is how we found out about this group and how he found out where they were. was there very not basically like a map to the stars homes for people who are not worthy of existing in this country according to the political left. the media let them do that. >> again, you're not suggesting if i'm not suggesting the
southern poverty law center said try to shoot as many people as you can. but it's not exactly what the left does is somebody shoot somebody, they will say the nra was behind it. >> it's amazing when we have the shooter in colorado, the aurora shooter at the batman movie. glen ross of abc news that a similar name. >> has been fired. >> finally. he was allowed to resign. he found a name on a tea party groups website. we don't know it's him, but it probably is, the bombing of the boston marathon have been on patriots' day. your organization has documented it. we don't know what the motivation was, but it's tax day, so those right-wingers hate government of this is probably them and it turns out it wasn't. it was terrorism. they jumped to the original conclusion. thank god for groups that the media research center otherwise nobody would hold them accountable because they quickly
move on. when they do an internal investigation like with the george the merman 9-1-1 call was edited by the news to make it sound like he was racist. they took it completely out of context, cropped quotes in half and slice it back together. that is not we accidentally hit the edit but. we don't know who did that. we were told they were disciplined somehow. we don't know who did it. we don't know if they were fired or so of the job. it's a different set of standards. >> you see this now emerging social media, the face with twitter, were shenanigans going on. >> with the occasionally "the new york times" comes and says to her says to her reporters we have a new social media policy don't give your opinions. they realize we aren't getting any retreats are as much follows her traffic from s. so they loosened the reins, never announce that loosening the
rain. but it is dangerous in that journalists, we all know they have opinions. i grew up with tom brokaw, peter jennings, that they were so blatant about it. now there's no ambiguity about it. there are 3280 characters at a time telling the world, telling conservatives come in telling the president to get bent on irregular basis. as i wrote in the book, and the journalism really went off the rails and it was an ally so i don't know what it was like, but watergate seems to be really where it went off the rails. journalist became celebrities with watergate. they were portrayed by robert redford in woodward's case in a very bit of generosity, carl bernstein was betrayed by dustin hoffman. dustin hoffman is a very handsome man, special event. they were invited to parties, making deals, books, millions of
dollars in journalist up-and-coming wanted to be like that. and then they became activists, but the editors at the time tried to pump the brakes on that. that's not her job. we report the story go were facts go. the people want to make a a difference are now the editors and i've got social justice warriors coming in. they don't want to pump the brakes of the social justice warriors don't want to pump the brakes. we went for a a world of hurt when those become the editors at his senate no holds barred. just press releases flopped under somebody's byline. it's going to get that bad. i feel bad for the future. my daughter one years old she's going to have to get multiple sources on the same story and try and cobble together the truth from all the sources. >> why does the left who donald trump? >> will they have 10 minutes
left. >> there's a visceral hatred that matches the media. the media, to, but everyone on the left take this man which is funny because the last 20 years before he announced he was running they love the man. he took his money, invited them to their parties, they went to his parties. morning joe, they were pals. now he's hitler. they hate him because he's not one of them anymore. it doesn't matter. bill reagan saying the 80% friend is number 20% enemy. i butchered that. by 99.9% friend is my .1% enemy. there is some middle ground. you are fully on board are fully out. they can't handle the fact that hillary clinton lost. as we see with the rushed investigation there has to be some sort of nefarious external sources to why she lost. it can't be after 30 years of knowing her the american people
said i'm not interested. it has to be something else. they can't accept that their ideas didn't sell. they can't accept there is a large percentage of this country who liked having border integrity, welcoming of immigrants but it's not an open door. coming to my house, knock on the door, don't climb in the window. they don't accept that. the left has turned this country and their vision from a melting pot to a series of chafing dishes in the chafing dishes can be moved like chess pieces against each other. matter that them and you're the victim here and you can pit people against each other. that is the last strategy. donald trump doesn't care about any of that. if you notice about donald trump's attacks, his tweets, comments from the podium, comments or rallies, whatever, he never picks somebody at random and says this journalist is this common batter the other
thing. i've never seen them pick a fight. i do read his tweets but it's never randomly to stand going to read about how rosie o'donnell is a horrible person. the left hates him because he's better at it than they are. they tried to get him and will certainly win an election in manhattan, washington d.c. and san francisco and los angeles. donald trump even though he's from new york and a billionaire, or something the current wisconsin who gets up in the morning and makes widgets can identify with. part of it is somebody's under attack and he hits back in place to win. >> the media are constantly
attacking drum. for not being a truth teller in for lying. where were they? you talk about this in your book. what the fact checkers, and a president who said if you like your plan you can keep your plan. >> over 30 times he said it. >> what is amazing about politicized is the fact checked out four times. three times. one time the data volume is a candidate to the no legislation, nobel whatsoever they declared it to be true. there is nothing to measure it against the data to be true. another protester at the first couple years of his presidency and he was varying degrees of truth. a little bit clearer than it was that going to be the case but they found a way to work around that they declared it true. it was only after 2012, 2013 it was declared the why of the year, five years after been told
dozens of times. there was no way to hold them accountable for that. they finally declared that wide of the year. the tortured logic true three times. they said this is the light because 5 million people have lost their health insurance. if you control the manager come you'll always be the tallest, the smartest, the best looking. it doesn't matter. that is what these fact checkers do. they decide what to check in how to check it. during the third debate, nbc news ran my fact checks. fact check is the worst thing to happen a journalist. they ran six fact checks during the last debate. everything they said they fact check and declared ally. they didn't run one single fact check against hillary clinton which gives the impression
everything she said the street from the bible absolutely true. one of the things they declared ally from donald trump was when he said hillary clinton had acid washed her server. she's the program to go through in ways that. hillary clinton didn't physically dip her server into a vat of hcl. that was declared ally. they said she did use leach bit, but not acid. no corrosive chemicals. you have to have something off to be watching the debate in it take to that level and it is a visceral dislike of the person that you're ready to stick on everything. i've had girlfriends where it's just not working out anymore, you begin to find things to nitpick. exactly what the media does to donald trump. >> something not working very well is your affection for bill nye the science guy.
what is that all about? >> i've nothing against bill nye personally, but he is not a science guy. he has an engineering degree. he tried to do standup comedy, failed and was ultimately cast on a kid's pbs show in the northeast that became bill nye the science guy. that's great. as a great show. he showed you how to do experiments and you learn things. but because he toes the liberal line feeds being viewed by the media with if there's a storm, an issue of climate change, let's bring in bill and i do talk about it. on the cbs morning show he's pontificating how we are all killing the planet and every rain storm and flood everywhere is because of climate change. he has no idea. he does no science background. why build a bridge, call bill nye. the same goes for neil degrasse tyson. brilliant i come astrophysicists. no doubt that his elegant, but
deep space is the antithesis of climate. it's not pain. avoid. if you want to go on to know what's you call bill degrasse tyson. on your television set and were all going to die and it's all your fault, stop exhaling. do it into a bag. it's the ability of television to give somebody expertise that they haven't earned enmity of the science guy, and he must know what he's talking about. if you look into his past, he doesn't. he knows more about science than i do simply because he spent 20 years doing experiments on tv. forgive me if i don't want to see control of the entire u.s. economy to a guy who read an article in the nation magazine about how the suv is killing us all. >> i find it fascinating that one of the great intellectual leaders today is beyoncé.
or leonardo dicaprio. i'm sure he cares about mother earth. it's got that carbon footprint of his own. but isn't it remarkable that they put these people forward. >> leonardo dicaprio turns a documentary documentary believe in partnership with cnn about time to change. meanwhile he looked his party up at victoria's secret models. nothing against party hats or victoria's secret models come in the world would be better off with more of both, but you can't really claim to be an environmentalist. one thing about the left is they will not live the way they seek to impose on others unless and until they impose it on others and then only maybe. al gore lives in a hollowed out shopping mall that he keeps that 68 degrees in the summer, but he'll tell you that you have to turn the fan on and walk around shirtless in your own home because it's good for the planet at its hypocrisy. i don't have a problem with
anybody having their say, but when they don't do it themselves , not drives me nuts. leonardo dicaprio and beyoncé of the world by the carbon footprint of a small country. nothing against it. i think it's great to be that successful, but to tell somebody else they can't do something. >> that's extraordinary. we only have a couple minutes, but hollywood preaches tolerance day and night. it appears to me as the most intolerant industry in america today. am i right or wrong or not? >> ups delivery. you can hold any opinion as long as it's one held by everybody. james woods, the great actor nominated, his agent dropped him because he didn't want to work for conservatives anymore. james woods, member woods, number of can be a bit combative and social media, but so what. his agent said i can't work with you because of your politics.
roseanne treated something incredibly and lost her job, lost her show, pretty much everything. she's pretty much done. not that she shouldn't have been scorned and ridiculed them for us to apologize, or run out of the business completely while james gunn, guardians of the galaxy movie is made a bunch of jokes on social media 10 years ago, was fired in the cast came together recently and wrote a letter to disney's studio saying he should be rehired. he's a good man. this was a long time ago. forgive and forget and move on. if a worker double standards liberals would have no standards at all. so i don't want special treatment. i just want the same treatment. hold me to this same standard. whatever we all agree upon. there is a move by the left now we need to stop going through
peoples tweets from 10 years ago. the left pioneered this to try and ruin conservatives. now that finally after 10 or 20 years of saying we're not going to play this game coming now we are going to hold you to your own standards and the left hates it. like i said, just want people to be held to the same standard. i don't care what the standards are as long as they're the same and we don't get that. >> derek, your book is transeven. i love the title. it is a business. it's been a delight talking to you this hour and i hope it's a monumental best-seller. >> appreciated. thanks so much.