tv After Words Derek Hunter Outraged Inc. CSPAN September 16, 2018 9:00pm-10:02pm EDT
>> next, the little columnist derrick hunter offers his thoughts on how progressives influence academia. the media and pop culture to advance their agenda. he's interviewed by brent bozzell at the media research center. a weekly interview with top nonfiction authors about their latest work. >> host: derek, a pleasure to have you with us today. >> guest: thank you. i'm a huge fan of your organization. >> we've never met although he followed each other for a long time. before talking about your book, tell us something about yourself and what led you to write this book. >> guest: i was really kind of a news junkie as a kid.
at time, stopped listening to music for the most part most of because i liked tom brock and that wasn't on the media. started listening to rush limbaugh when he came to detroit in 1989 pb four that the first volumes and sally jessy raphael. human beings topic i thought i could learn something. nerdy maybe, but fun i found much for engaging. in college and late 90s when the clinton scandals broke, i was glued to tv. i watch hardball at 5:00, brit hume at 6:00, hardball again at 7:00 sometimes. o'reilly, hannity and combs. sometimes i would even we watch hardball at 11:00. i couldn't get enough. the media was given information. interview with newsmakers. civil conversations about serious issues. somewhere in the mid-2000, bush hitler became a thing that the left lost their mining cable
news morphed into the same 12 people having conversations that if they happen at a table next to use 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 this pattern on the left where it's all about appealing to emotion. it's all about keeping people angry or afraid in the alternative is to sell them something, sell them your policies in liberal policies don't sell very well in middle america appeared look at the map. people just want to be left alone. why are these people doing that? they are doing what doesn't work. more people watch house hunters international and cnn. you begin to see it as a strategy that it's all part of the plan. maybe not sitting around in a smoke-filled room figuring out this plan. but certainly something that occurred to them. the highest mine doesn't need to be giving orders. they just know.
i know you remember because you guys pointed it out in 2000 when george w. bush and kennedy george bush announced dick cheney. he 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 newscasters everywhere. i begin to piece this together. it's not a conspiracy because that involves 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 and understand. they get the blatant ways media bias works. the subtle way, the bias by proxy, which is one of the chapters. >> host: but it's not biased or looking at. it's outrage. >> it is. the left has an innate ability to appeal to emotion that the right doesn't have. we can go up there and prove
sound slide after slide saying here it is irrefutable amounts. there it is. the other side will trot out the worst-case scenario, presented as the norm. the appeal to your emotion and say you're only one paycheck away from this happening to you and it scares the out of people. so they act on fear. you remember when you were scared, just like you remember when you laugh. he don't remember the dry lecture or learning how to do proofs in algebra class. you forget that stuff. if you appeal to emotion, good, bad or indifferent, and as long as the spurs something in your brain come you tend to remember better. the left is so much better if messaging. they are able to sell a true bond two people. poster with the exception of bob dole who nobody cares about, you look it up for republican president or presidential candidate nominee going back to
eisenhower in the latter one point or another has made an accusation they look at us in a nuclear war. that is the politics of fear. let me ask a question because to me it is fascinating. if you look at a political movement, it has always been when you think of the tip of the spear for political movement from you think congressional leaders. talking about the last time you talk about the nancy pelosi, chuck schumer. or you'd be talking about the administration, talking about hollywood, talking about left-wing act to this. and yet, throughout your book, in instance after instance after an dense, and it is the news media. i've never seen this before. the next news media because as the conduit to which all of that communicates and gets to us through there. i don't know that the tip of the sphere necessarily but certainly the center of the funnel and it doesn't matter where it comes
from. they disseminate information. the ghost and the democratic leadership for the party, through the media, hollywood, science community and now they know what they're looking for in order to get publicity to give our brains for a self-fulfilling snake eating its own tail in a way. the media is the center point because it is the easiest conduit and they are, despite what your organization is thankfully addressed and documented for 30 years, they are trusted by a lot of people inherently. you see somebody on tv, republican strategist talking about what happened in north korea today. they must know what they are doing because they are on tv. surely this giant news organization. there's no such such job as republican strategists. it seems really easy. all you do is talk on tv. i can't find that job. you begin to realize it is all you look at on tv and you convey
the message they want. are you willing to play along? it becomes kabuki theater. it really is not really brainwashing because i don't know what done for nefarious purposes most the time. sometimes it certainly is. but it is done for convenience steak, out of laziness, and this is what we need this person will do it like a lego piece will snap it together. you need journalism. >> host: you are not too fond of contributors on television. explain that. guess i worked at the heritage foundation in early two thousands right out of college to start in the bookstores and move to the health policy. when there is an issue on capitol hill working on the medical modernization act when they're adding a prescription drug. cnn, msnbc and fox is another coworkers at aei, cei, urban institute. all of the policy analysts were
over there because they the legislation, they do this staff. somewhere, that stopped and now it is here is a guy we had on yesterday talking about russia pollution. now is talking about prescription drug prices. tomorrow he will come on and talk about whatever was the flavor of the day is you begin to realize expertise has been shut out for convenience sake. if you've got somebody really good on an issue, you want to lock them down, stop your competitors from getting them because it makes sense. news media is a business after all. but now they weigh in on everything where they have no expertise in if you watch from one day to the other, they are waiting and not wildly different things. it's hard enough to become an expert on one or two issues, but everything. international relations commit international law. like ideal time to do all this and then you realize you don't. but they are booked ahead of time. three days to come on at this
time. we'll tell you the topics the day of. >> host: you are giving away secrets. >> guest: i know. it bothers me. there are experts in this town and you can disagree with their conclusions but you can't disagree with their fact and they are not getting -- the heritage foundation is not far from office networks now and the path was beaten into the ground is now grown over because they're not coming for experts anymore. coming for the people it easy to get on the payroll who are good on tv and can adjust an associated press story 20 minutes for air and speak for three minutes of the 30,000-foot level where nobody learns anything and that is supposed to be the purpose of journalism to educate people about what's going on in the world and i don't see that happening as much anymore. >> host: it is a tough call because tom johnson, the former president of cnn, i was once giving them a hard time because they become the o.j. network during the o.j. trial.
she would call me afterwards and he said my job is to bring advertising revenue for the shareholders of this company. he said last year our audience went down 25%. this year we begin the o.j. network in the audience went up 400%. if you're at my shoes, what would you do? i think that's a problem as well. the networks are doing is partially because they are kidding to an audience that wants this as well. >> adept as they to pay the bill. we shouldn't be having like new jersey having publicly funded media, but there has to be a point about. you could have a network of somebody standing at an intersection yelling at passing cars. that would give pretty good numbers. it is not completely against contributors. if you want to get opinion, that is fine. but in the middle of a news broadcast when you bring in people that's where you have the
problem. it is a delicate line. i understand the business model and support the business model, but you have access to experts. they are not cost you anything. when the think tank the think tank which urges it down for a five-minute interview. if you have the opportunity to convey, and tucker charleston baptist and i because he's a friend and i work at the daily color. he is actual first-person newsmakers. somebody introducing legislation. he'll bring in a democrat. that is so rare in cable news these days that you can learn more about our then you can in the rest of cable news. >> your something interesting. your rants are just now was longer than any soundbite allowed on television today on the networks. think about that. 25 years ago crossfire and everybody said that was lowbrow, lowbrow. but if you are a guest on crossfire, you have to defend your position for half an hour
against people who were loaded with facts against you from the whole team of researchers. so you know, you had one hand behind your back and you had to fight it today it's two minutes. comment on this. does anybody get a real point across on television in a minute and a half? >> guest: know they don't. i'm guilty of it too. you look for something that can go viral. the network is looking for something they can clip into a 392nd clip, put in a tweet from a post on that will go viral. it is bad. it's good for business because you get a lot of eyes on it, but bad for conveying information. we are in a world that move so quickly, brent. you know this. twitter is immediate and there's two miniature loss will say will report first and check it out later. we can always correct it in the digital age. once it is in the paper you had to have it locked down because there was for the world to see and i was the only way the world is he appeared to you posted
online and add and update another editor's note you don't have to worry about the fact checking. you can convey information when the people conveying information aren't all that interested. they are more in being first. it is the death of journalism in a lot of ways. it is democratized in a lot of ways. a lot by people who can put their stories out there. i'm not sure that is necessarily good because you see fake news all over the place. you can just make it up for world get around the world three times before truth gets its pants on. >> host: speaking of good news, back to your book. micro-aggressions. you have 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. >> guest: a lot of people coming as a trigger warning for
you. micro-aggression is some sort of offense, usually racial or gender specific that is so subtle that if you and i were talking i could make progress against you and i wouldn't notice i done it. you wouldn't notice, but some third-party observer might have picked up on the subtleties of that, found some obscure way that was offensive and then come in and tell you you should be offended about what i said. you then would become offended. this is a college campus and i would give you the apology. it is so subtle and so absurd. the reason we have it as i'm not somebody who's going to deny racism makes us. i don't think anyone would deny it. 330 million people in this country, 7 billion people on the planet. they will be and not pool no matter what. we have to acknowledge that we've made significant progress. in a june 29 -- 192,106,000,000 people in the country had 400 million members of the, big
granddaddy racist organization. about 35738% of the population. in 2016 when 330 million people in the southern poverty law center of all places estimated about 6500 members of the clan. that is a rounding error in population to go from not in 100 years to a rounding error is amazing. put it another way and they peppered the joke -- the book with jokes to make it a fun read. the wnba celebrated the 2016 season because of their success in attendance. the average attendance was 7644 people. that means that any given random wnba game, the least popular professional sport on the planet earth ever there were 1144 more people at that game than there are members of the clan in the whole country. we should be celebrating that. we should inspect the football the five-yard line there still racism. that is amazing progress for a
society diverse as ours in 100 years. yet we are told this is a racist country and we have to create micro-aggression and something ridiculous like micro-aggression. 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 gratis. we had to create something ridiculous like that to keep the fuel going in the outreach machine where we are horribly racist country in discriminating when it's really garbage. >> host: would you agree with me that it's also a visual assault on television and that is the reason why it is projected? think about that -- i don't know what else to call this god person who did the shooting in north carolina. there was that one photograph of him with the confederate flag and that became the reason why you tear down the least statue
in new orleans. it was one despicable person holding the flag. that visual was shown everywhere as we see the visuals of the and the virtually doesn't exist. do you believe the media keep it alive because it's a good visual? >> guest: is a good visual and good politics. if you want people not to think rationally come you keep them riled up, angry, afraid. most of the things you apologize for your life were not as you said calmly sitting behind your compass sipping a cup of tea thinking about it clearly it is something you did in the heat of the moment and came back and said i'm sorry for you curse because you kicked the coffee table on your way through the room. whatever it is. emotion overrides logic. if you can keep people thinking the democrats spent the last two years and it's open season on young black men. the data doesn't show that appear the facts do show that. the media shows that 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, i lived in baltimore at the time. there were four confederate monuments. people forget that maryland was a confederate day. i was able to see because lincoln arrested the legislature. but they tore those down and they celebrated the democratic power structure address this problem. the next year we had the highest number of murders recorded the city's history. no problem was solved whatever symbolism over substance which was a theme democrats and have been playing out the symbolism over substance. it sells. it works. appealing to people's feeling is much easier sell. you can make somebody feel bad about something and then you give them away to feel good about it. if you tell somebody logically something then you have to maybe save a little more money to be ready for retirement.
that's no fun. telling someone to feel bad and then giving them the key to feel good is a drug dealer's model quite frankly. >> host: does the left want resolution on these outrageous issues? it seems like whatever they get, they want more. whatever solution they find it a new problem. on this confederate think they are talking about having to rename the capital of texas because austin did not come out in support some mexican who wanted to end slavery. they want to rename the capital. >> "newsweek" referred to see boston is a confederate leader even though he died 15 years before the civil war. under hot works, but there is time machine technology i like to know about it. we saw the border crisis and the separation of families in the bylaw, by the way. democrats demanded they be put back together. and now they need to lobby the least. there is never enough.
they have their agenda, like the terminator. they can't be reasoned with. they will never stop until you are completely destroyed. >> host: i want to read you a quote and i want you to expand on it. the double standards don't stop with scandals. liberals conservatives on the tone of the rhetoric while engaging in some of the most violent rhetoric ever to exit a human's mouth. are you suggesting hypocrisy here? >> iem. there's examples in the book, but aji sulzberger, a victim of nepotism i'm sure he earned that job who runs "the new york times." he said calling the press enemies of the people will have repercussions. he could be putting journalist lives in danger. absolutely you should not threaten journalists. you shouldn't threaten anybody, but you can't pretend -- i did a google search about this.
i found several examples of "new york times" on an op-ed that compared donald trump to hitler, republicans to nazis. if you think calling journalist enemies of the people is bad, i could probably be down with that. that's a little bit harsher than it needs to be. but what do you think of calling the president of the united states hitler? we've already seen an example. james hodgkinson laster and virginia opening fire on republicans on a baseball field because he had been told time and time again by the mainstream media that the republican health care plan and the repeal and replacement of obamacare cost upwards of 40,000 or 50,000 lives per year. don't you almost have a normal obligation to act? if you believe adolf hitler that resides in the white house, don't you almost have a moral obligation to act? they'll cover it that way. they look at their own hands is clean. it is apocryphal obviously, but
it's comically apocryphal how they don't recognize this, how the publisher of "the new york times" doesn't recognize chars forward an op-ed that said trump is a hitler. i don't know how well as know how else to point know how else to point it out except just pointed out. a lot of times the left gives you a tap in putt and you just have to take it. you put the driver waved them to take putter onto the green. >> host: i find it fascinating that the left is all about moral relativism unless they themselves speak in which his moral certitude and to oppose them. right now, anyone listening to you from the left is probably thinking about right this very second how much he despises you simply because you disagree, therefore you are a disagreeable
person. what is it about this moral certitude that so many of them can't get off their high horse? >> guest: it is the emotional appeal that i write about. if you believe your enemy is history's greatest monster, nothing they say is valid. nothing they do is valid then you have every right to hate them, despise them and reject and refuse to listen to them. it is brilliant marketing in a lot of ways to paint conservatives have these monsters that it's wrong, i like him a fraud, dangerous as, dangerous hazards on the baseball field last year and i hope associated although we fear that we will. it is much easier. you don't have to make a case. if you believe that you are nazis no matter what you say i can dismiss it out of hand. i don't have to counter it. i don't have to rebut it or respond to it. the charge of racism again going back to that is thrown around.
racism in this country. we are not hearing it. if you disagree with barack obama, your racist. doesn't matter if you held the position for 20 years. i oppose bill clinton. nobody made that charge, but the left found it much easier to just go around these pejorative terms rather than make a coherent intelligent argument. i don't blame them. most people wish they could work from the couch would. it would be an easier life. but it's not advancing the ball. it's not advancing stability and certainly not winning an argument because you get people to your side who refuse to engage. it isn't raining and we are paying the price. $21 trillion in debt without winning the argument. >> host: we talked about low-voltage contributors in the news. let's move over to low-voltage
intellectuals in hollywood. it feels like you understand this. most conservatives don't understand the power of hollywood. you understand the cultural power. daily caller understands the cultural power. speak to that. >> guest: enter by part famously says politics is -- you hear it in the small screen and eventually some will try and legislate. it's absolutely true. when i write a column, two columns a week for townhall. when i read a column about hollywood, i occasionally check the comments here sort of a vanity thing, but i do it. there's always people there who say i got rid of cable. i don't watch tv. then you just how the culture war. congratulations. i'm not saying you have to go to the movies every month or watch every tv show, but you should be aware of it because it's important. growing up, most people are watching the news, aren't
reading newspapers. they are learning about things from pop culture. if you go onto netflix and look at the documentary section, if you're cleaning your house one saturday afternoon and you want something on you can kind of ignore come you: the documentary section of netflix. there is every liberal fever dream in there. food is killing you, genetically modified food. i'm a change coming for you. capitalism is evil. all of these documentaries in their documentaries in air quotes around 200 documentaries. these make lake documentaries. you'd have a point of view. these are activism films, not documentaries. and then you've got the mainstream movies that sort of hammer sort of hammering these left-wing messages. it's not beating you over the head with it, but it's getting into your head and if you don't pay attention to that and find a way to counteract that, you are going to lose in the long run because people can quote movies much more than they can call
politicians, certainly much more than anything from the news for any study. that sticks with you. you're going to need a bigger boat. everybody knows that. it's a way to get into people's heads, people's psyche and believe things that aren't necessarily true and then impact your vote. postcode you had a statistic in here that i found fascinating. and alas i don't know how many years, 62 nominees for best picture, but only two of them had grossed more than $100 million had only two of them were really popular. the rest were. what were they about? >> guest: they were about the liberal feel-good movies. hollywood is its own industry. they could toward anybody they want, but to pretend somehow there is a some kind of message behind it, that the argument was one year when their own nominees who are white.
how can this possibly happen? they changed the criteria to bring in more people of color and they want to change the vote. maybe we should make that her movies. they control the money. they control what movies are made. tyler perry has made a ton of money but is not going to be an oscar-winning director for filmmaker anytime soon because movies generally aren't that good. they might be entertaining, but they are not dramas, not even particularly funny. they want to deal with the end result rather than the real problems. 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. .. angeles. we all
have to address this. we didn't do this. i guarantee the farmer in iowa didn't do this. the auto america in michigan didn't do this. the executive in new york and la did this. that don't big to the democrats. that's how they absolve themselves of guilt. it's a societal problem. no it's not, it's your problem. >> this picture is right on plane to you when conserves f conservatives complain to the media, they'll talk about msnbc,
cnn. question, who's more powerful? anybody at msnbc, or steven cobear? >> well steven, because it's not very often. msnbc goes viral. there's a lot of conservatives hate ' watch msnbc, when katie or stephanie says something rules. steven has the cover of i'm a comedian, i'm just making a joke. we saw this with john stuart when he was on cross ' fire. he wanted to be a jokester, and he wanted to make a serious point and criticize tucker and mcgala. and when they called him out he says i'm just a comedian. you guys are bad. if you watch these things intermingle fact and fiction, and it's not even jokes. those monlogs are political speeches, punk chuted with applause lines, not punch lines. you don't know
that. you're tuning into watch your favorite movie star, and band and you're being inuncaitd with subtle half truths and flat out lides sometimes. it's much more powerful that way, because it's on every day. people watch it, it's done with humor, which is not much. but you tend to remember jokes much longer than you remember anything else. so he's much more effective and dangerous. >> if a liberal were here, they'd say wait a minute, what about johnny carson? what about john wayne, jimmy stuart, all these were conservative republicans, why was it okay for them, but not okay for steven cobear, or john stuart. >> i'm not saying it's okay for them. >> so it's the same thing. >> no not the same thing at all johnny carson would make fun of ronled reagan. he had to do a
ten-minute monologue where he was funny. steven cobear says this was in the news, i want to talk about this medicare for all. write me jokes around that, or a monologue piece on that. but johnny would make fun of everybody. john wayne, jimmy stuart were conservative residence they were also on tv twice a year when they had a movie coming out for five minutes at a pop. they didn't have social media, viral videos it's a different world now. nothing -- johnny carson you talk about what he said the night before around the watercooler, and the next day you might talk about what he said the following night. now things live forever online. >> can you imagine a dean martin roast today? that was about making you laugh. >> it would be rated as a hate crime. >> dawn rickal would be up on charges. you can't have fun anymore. do you spend a lot of
time talking about the sblc, southern poverty law center. there is a quote that you said from them which moo me shocked me. on three different levels. a quote is this. a bias incident is speech or expression motivated by bias or prejudice. it differs from a hate crime in that no criminal activity is involved. first question to you. how else is bias motivated other than by bias? and isn't that -- isn't bias prejudice? >> they with a but gnaw the way they define it. if i called you carat top, you could report that as a bias incident. i mean it as such. i'm glad you took it
that way. [laughter] >> someone's going to call in about microaggression. >> that's the level of it. we had four million members of the clan in 1920, we're down to a rounding number of the population. there's an entire industry there. the southern poverty law center, if we solve these problems they go away. they don't want to go away. they want to keep reacting into the money. they have to redefine what about the problem is and pretend they're not. a bias instant was instituted after the election of donald trump. remember the hate crimes were going through the roof. the jewish community centers were getting bomb threats and it was horrible, and that was a huge story. they found it was a former journalist, a black guy in st. louis. and this story didn't exist anymore. were they ever convicted? who knows. the media stopped covering it. it no longer fit the narrative that it fit donald
trump. there are instances of racism, not nearly as big and most people are shunned if they're a racist. they are have to redefine no person is being beaten in the streets because of their race. they have the redefine it if you say i'm an american first, that's the level of insanity, that is treated on the same level from a statistical standpoint because when you throw it into a bowl of statistic it's a number with a bunch of other numbers could be a beat down. burning a cross on somebody's lawn, and saying america's the great country in the world. you throw them into the same bag, the baying weight changes and you discount the weight of the bag. you don't look at the actual meet on the bone. >> the word that gets me is incident in this. there is a sutiondz that you write it down and it's going into a book and we're keeping tabs on you.
>> this happened on college campuses and the left has fetished victim hood. you're a hero. i have been discriminated against because of my sexuality, or whatever, so people aspire to it. people find new and creative ways to paint themselves as victims and then of course they're the hero fighting the victim. you see this with the hate crime hoaxes that i detail in the book. these social justice wereiers, if they don't get it at home or somewhere else, they are indone dated with college, high school, this country is racist, this country is it and you have to go out and stop it, fight it, fight conservatives, fight republicans and even different people they're the problem. they bust out of their classrooms everywhere. it's systemic the country is founded on it, so they're going to go out and change the world, and fight this stuff. but they can't find it. so they separatepoint nazi
swastikas on things. they spray paint racial slurs, and then record it say look what i found and eventually as so many cases in the book, there's no follow-up. they do it because they wanted to raise awareness. they did it for the noblest of reasons. they know it's out there but they can't find it. it doesn't click in their brain that if they can't find it, and it's supposed to be everywhere, maybe it's not everywhere. maybe it's much less than they've been told. and start to question things. the ability to question is been drummed out of these social justice wereiers they don't know how to think for themselves anymore. >> the southern poverty law center could be considered by the left as the ground zero of wisdom. you have another term for that, i forget what you call that, it was very funny. i will see it in my notes. it occurs
to me, talking about bias incidents, you probably document 200-300, 400 in this book, where there were microaggressions if we wanted to call them that against conservatives. the use do you pieces the poverty law center has addressed a single one you brought up? >> no, there's mow money in it for them. they know where their sugar daddies are. they have a half a billion dollars now, some giant pile of money. they have a business model that works. they're not going to stray from that. if you're getting as an example, a lot of money from tom story desire the billion air that wants to impeach the president. you're not going to say well there's some other billion air who wants to opposite of that. mow you have your sugar daddy and they stick with it. they have their business model. they
don't fight poverty. that you are not southern. >> no they're not southern. >> what percent of their money goes to? >> it goes to bogus studies, and maintain websites and a lot of that stays in their pockets and they travel the united states first-class. there's a business model. nobody does this for free. nobody's going to get up in the morning and no matter how much they believe in the cause. the foot soldier, the people running the show, or running the organizations, no matter how noble the cause they're not missing a meal, they're do go all right. >> in case our viewers haven't heard about this in the press. what happened with the hate crime map with the southern poverty law center? what were the consequences? >> the family research center was shot by a guy who brought in a bag full of chick fillet and a
gun hell bent on killing as many people which is a christian organization, believe that marriage is between a man and a would mean. they put listed the center as a hate group in washington, d.c. this guy fought with the building manager who was a hero. was able to stop the would be killer and it was all inspired by the southern poverty law center. which is ironic because the left said a map on sarah palin's website that nobody saw, nobody went to her website and saw the cross hairs on gabby giferredz congressional district. that was blamed by paul at the "new york times," and the "new york times" in general as being the inspiration of jared lofner's shooting of gabby giffards and others. it's insane. the southern poverty center was left out of stories about the family research center. as recently as last year, the "new york times"
editorial board, proving they don't even read their own paper cited the cross hairs on sarah palin's website as the reason of the gabby giffards shooting. hay had to issue a painful and embarrassing retracks. you see how once something gets out there itstention with people. they don't want the fact that bernie was the one who shot at the baseball field. they don't want that the shooter in the research center was inspired by the southern poverty center. they know if it gets out there it will stick. when the new york times editorial board, not some random reporter, an editorial signed by a board cites something they're own newspaper had debunked in the same issue, by the way, you realize that it's -- what we're really up against. once something gets into the
consciousinous of the pblg it's hard to get it out. >> to me going back to dylan roof, the horrific guy who committed the murders, the racist murders he wasn't supported or motivated by an organization. this guy was. it was not suggesting they said to go do it but he was following the dictates of a hate map and taking it to a horrible extremely. >> it goes back to believe if you believe adolph hitler roams the hauls -- the southern poverty law center isn't very diplomatic in the way they label these groups, it's hate, it's not their bad, they feel this way on this issue, there's some influence there, it's either you're good or bad, and if you believe you're good you have to be against bad. you label the family research counsel this evil group who are harming
people even though all they're doing is holding opinion. if you're off in the head you can see how somebody thinks they have a moral obligation to act. you have to stamp out hate. well, i have a chance to stamp out hate. and you go and try to do it. the southern poverty law center acts like a blackjack dealer in investigates, and say we didn't have anything to do with it. the media helps them sneak out the back door. they ignored the connection. they gored the fact he had a printed up map, he said that's how he found out about this group, was the very map, the hate map which was a map to the stars homes where people who are not worthy of existing in this country, according to the political left the media let them do that. that's how bad they are. >> and again, you're not suggesting, as i'm not suggesting that the southern poverty law center said go shoot people, but isn't that exactly what the left does if somebody
shoots somebody they'll say the nra, the nra was behind it. >> it's amazing when we have the short out in colorado, the aurora shooter at the bat man movie. brian ross of abc news found a similar name. >> he's been fired. >> he was allowed to resign. >> he found a name on a tea party's website name. we don't know if it was him, the bombing up in the boston marathon bombing happened on patriots day. we don't know what the motivation was but it's patriots day, and it turns out it was terrorism. they jumped to the original inclusion, thank you god for groups like the media research center no one would hold them accountable. they move on, won't acknowledge it happened. when they do an internal investigation. when the george zimmerman call was
edited by 911, they made it look like he was racist. dropped quotes in half, and spliced it back together. that's not by accident. that's not we accidentally hit the edit button that was deliberate. we don't know who did that. we were told they were disciplined somehow. we don't know if they're still on the job. it's a different set of standards. >> did you see this now emerging with social media? the facebook, the twitter? with their shenanigans going on what do you speak to that? >> we sooit occasionally in the "new york times." we have a new social media policy don't give your opinions. they realize we're not getting as many tweets, traffic, follows from this so they loosen the reign, never announce they're loosening the right nows but it's dangerous in that journalist we know they had opinions. i grew
up with tom borrow caw, dan rather, but they weren't so blatant about it. there's no ambiguity about it. they're out there 280 characters at a time, telling the president to get bent, conservatives to get bent on a regular basis. >> they're venting. >> yes. as i read in the book, where journal 678 went off the rails, i wasn't alive so i don't know what it was like before. watergate seems to be when it went off the rails. journalist became celebrities. are in woodward's case he was portrayed by robert redford. carl burn at the scene was portrayed by dustin hoffman. they were invited to parties. they were making deals, books, they made million of dollars, and journalists wanted to be like them. let's go get a president and they became activatest but
the editors tried to pump the brakes. we go over the facts, the people who wanted to make a difference are now the editors, and you have social justice wereiers coming in and they don't want to pump the brakes. the social justice wereiers don't want to pump the brakes. we're in for a world of hurt when the social wereiers become the editors, it will be press releases being slapped under somebody's by-line. it will get that bad. i feel bad for the future. my daughter, 1-year-old is going to have to be skeptical of everything she reads, and get multiple sources on the same story and try and cobble together the truth from all of those sources. >> so, why does the left hate donald trump? >> [laughter] >> because he's not them. >> we only have ten minutes left, we could go for another how far. this role -- not just the media, the media too, but
everyone on the left hates this man. why? >> because for the last 20 years they loved the man. they took his money, they invited him to their parties. they went to his parties. morning they were pals. now he's hitler. why do they hate him? because he's not one of them anymore. it doesn't matter. the old reagan saying. my 80% friends is now my 20% enemy. with the progressivey easiest left, there is no middle ground, you're either fully on board or fully out. they can't handle the fact that hillary clinton lost. as we see with the russia investigation. there has to be some sort of nefarious external sores as to why she lost. it can't be after 30 years of knowing her, the american people said oh, i'm not interested. it has to be something else. they can't accept that they're ideas
didn't sell. they can't accept that there's a large percentage of this country who likes having border integrity. where welcoming of imimrnts. but it's not a open door. they don't accept that. that's their future business model. the left has turned this country in their vision from a melting pot to a series of chafing dishes. those dishes can be moved like chess pieces, against each other. well now you're the victim, and you're the victim here, and you can pit people against each other. that's the left's strategy. donald trump doesn't care about any of that. donald trump, if you notice about his attacks, his tweets, his comments from the podium, his comments at rallies, he never just picks somebody at random and then says well this judgest is a. he's always hitting back he hits back harder but i've never seen him pick a fight.
i've seen him finish fights. but i do go read his tweets and go probably shouldn't have said it that way, but he never just randomly, it's tuesday i'm going to write about how rosy odonnell is a horrible person. the left hates him because he's better at it than they are. they try to get him, and they'll certainly within an election in manhattan. they'll win an election in washington, d.c. they'll win an election in san francisco and los angeles, it's the rest of the country they lose. donald trump even though he's from new york and he is a billion air. there's something about a guy in wisconsin that gets up in the morning and makes widgets can identify with. somebody's under attack and he hits back and plays to win. >> so the media are constantly attacking trump, not the media, everybody on the left constantly attacking trump for not being a truth elteller, and for lying.
where were they, you talk about this in your book, and with the fact-checkers, with blitz fact, with the polit fact, with the president saying if you like your plan you can keep your plan. >> over30 times he said this. >> what's amazing with polit fact, they check that, one time they did it while he was a candidate. they dlaryd it to be true. there was nothing to measure it against but they knew it to be true. they fact-checked it two more times throughout the years of his presidency, and it was vaguer degrees of truth. it became clearer it wasn't the case but they found a way to work around that and dlaryd it declared it true. it was 2013 that it was declared the lie of the year, five years after it had been told dozens of times. when no longer was barack obama going to face the voters, there was no
way to hold him accountable they declared it lie of the year. the tortured logic of how they declared it true three times, they didn't announce they declared it true three times. they said this is the lie of the year because 5 million people lost their health insurance. if you control the unitive measure you're always going to be the tallest, smartest, best-looking, the funniest, the smartest, it doesn't matter. that's what these fact checkers do. they decide how to check and what to do check. during the third debate, nbc news ran live fact checks on their twitter. they ran six fact checks during the last eight. all of them were against trump. all of them they declared a lie. they didn't run one single fact check against hillary clinton. teone of the things they fact checked and declared a lie from donald trump was when he said that hillary
clinton had acid washed her server. she used the program bleachbit to go through. referring it to it as acid washed. hillary clinton didn't physically dip her server into a vat of hydrocloric acid it was declared a lie. there's no corrosive chemical. you have to have something off in your brain to be watching a debate and nit-pick to that level. it is a visceral dislike of the person saying it that you're ready to stick on everything. i've had goivd f girlfriends when you -- it's just not working out anymore. you begin to find things to nit-pick. that's exactly what the media does to donald trump. >> something not working very well is your affection for bill my, the science guy. >> what is that all about? >> i have nothing against bill nigh personally, he has an
engineering degree, he tried to do stand-up comedy, and was ultimately cast on a kids pbcs show in the at least that became bill nye the science guy. she showed you how to do experiments and you learn things. because he chose the liberal line he has been embeud by the media, if there's a storm, an issue of rv climate change, bring in bill nye on it. he's pontificate how we're all killing the planet, and every rainstorm and flood is because of climate change. he doesn't have a science background. you want to build a bridge call bill nye, if you want to know about a climate, call a climatologist. same with neil degrass. deep space is the an tithicist of climate. it's nothing, it's a voice. void.
if you want to go on in pollutey call neil decrass tyson. it's the ability of television to give somebody expertise they haven't earned. if you throw the science guy in his name 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, but i don't want toceive control to the entire u.s. economy to a guy that read an article in the nation magazine how the circumstance suv is killing us all. >> i think the find it fascinating that one of the greatest leaders is beyonce. i'm sure leonardo dicaprio,
he's not an expert on these things. it's remarkable that they put these things forward. >> leo dicaprio turns out documentary, after documentary. he loads his party with victoria's secret models, on his yachts. you can't really claim to be an environmentest, one thing about the legislates f left they will not live the way they seek to impose on others. unless and until they impose it on others. and then only maybe algor lives out in a hollywood out shopping mall that he keeps at 68 degrees in the summer but he'll tell you to turn a fan on and walk around shirtless in your own home because it's good for the planet. i don't have a problem with anybody having their say. but when they don't do it, themselves that's what drives me nuts. leonardo decrap reose and the beyonces have a
carbon footprint of a small country. i think it's great to be that successful but to tell somebodyelst they can't do something. >> that's the sprord something. we only have a couple o minutes left. hollywood preaches tolerance. day and night. it appears to be the most intorment industry in america today. am i right or wrong. >> you're absolutely right. you can hold any opinion as long as it's the opinion held by everybody. you are run out of town. james wood, the egreat oscar nominated, dropped by his agent because he was a conservative. . his agent said i can't work with you because of your politics. roseanne, tweeted something incredibly stupid, and lost her job, lost her show, lost pretty much everything. she's pretty
much done. not that she shouldn't have been scorned and ridiculed and forced to apologize, but run out of the business completely. while gentleman gun, the director of the guardians of the galaxy movie made a bunch of pedophile jokes and the cast came together recently and wrote a letter to disney studiosis saying he should be rehired after being fired. forgive and forget and move on. if it weren't for double standards liberals would have noer standards at all. i don't want special treatment. i just want the same treatment. hold me to the same standard. whatever we all agree upon. it's funny because there is a move by the left of help james begun, and stop going back from people's tweets from ten years ago. the left pioneered this to try to ruin conservative. now
that we finally after ten or twenty years after saying we're not going to play this game, we're going to play this game. we're going to hold you to your own standards and the left hates it. i just want people to be treated, helped with the same standards. i don't think what those standards are as long as they're the same and we don't get that. >>dayic your book, ownched, i love the "outraged, inc.," it is a delight talking to you this hour. i hope it's a monumental best-seller because it deserves to be. thanks so much. >> if you'd like to view other afterwards prams online, go to our website book tv.org. type after words in the search bar, and all previous episodes will be available.
>> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> so we are here of course to listen to lica margonelli for her new book underbug, a successive tale of termites and technology. margonelli learns of a theory that would