tv After Words Derek Hunter Outraged Inc. CSPAN September 17, 2018 12:00am-1:01am EDT
the >> next on booktv is afterwards comparable 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 bozell, founder and president of the media research center. afterwards, a weak reed of your program with relevant guest hosts interviewing top nonfiction authors about their latest work. postcode derek, a pleasure to have you with us today.
>> guest: thank you for doing this. we've never met although we followed you for a long time. before talking about your book, tell us something about yourself and what led you to write this book. >> i was always kind of a news junkie as a kid. i attend stop listening to music for the most part. mostly because i like punk rock and that was in on the radio. but i found talk radio and i started listening to that and i found it fascinating to listen to rush limbaugh when he came to detroit in 1989 when i was a kid peer a kid there a kid peer before that from her personal ensign sally jessy raphael. human beings talking human beings talking i thought i could learn something. nerdy, but fun. i found a much more engaging. in college in the late 90s when the clinton scandals broke, i was glued to tv. i would watch hardball 5:00, brit hume at 6:00, hardball at 7:00 again. o'reilly and hannity and sometimes i would even re-watch hardball 11.
i couldn't get enough of it. all media was giving information. interviews with newsmakers -- newsmakers, civil conversations about serious issues. somewhere in the mid-2000 bush hitler became a thing. the left lost their mind in cable news morphed into the same 12 people having conversations and if they have another restaurant table next to you please, you would move. it bothered me because i love consuming information. it is harder and harder to find many begin to begin to see this pattern on the left where it's all about appealing to emotion. keeping people angry or afraid in the alternative is to try and sell them something, solving your policies of liberal policies don't sell very well, particularly middle america. people just want to be left alone. i thought why are these people doing this? they are doing what doesn't work.
or people watch house hunters international than cnn for example. i want them. and you begin to see it's a strategy, all part of the plan. maybe not a smoke-filled room figuring out this plan, but is certainly something that occurred to them. the hive mind doesn't need to be given orders. i know you remember because you guys pointed it out in 2000 when george w. bush, then candidate george w. bush announced dick cheney to be vice president and suddenly the word gravitas, which i don't think you could find in the transcript for the previous 10 years in any network newscast is everywhere and i began to piece this together. it is not a conspiracy because it is planning, a mindset. go me to be told. everyone knows what to do. i thought i don't know people know that some people understand. they get in the blatantly media bias works, the subtle way, the bias by proxy, which is one of
the chap is. >> but it's not bias are looking up not bias you're looking i peered its outrage. it's beyond bias. >> it is to the left has an innate ability to appeal to emotion that the right doesn't have. we can go up there and present a slide after slide in powerpoint presentation. here it is irrefutable mass. there it is. the other side will try out the scenario. presented as the norm. you only one paycheck away from this happening to you and it scares people. so they act on fear. you remember when you were scared, just like you remember when you left. you don't remember the dry lecture in algebra class. you forget that stuff. if you appeal to emotion, good, bad or indifferent the way it to spur something in your brain, your member better.
we have such a better message and variable to sell nature bond two people. >> with the exception of bob dole that nobody cares about, you look it over republican. presidential candidate nominee going back to eisenhower at one point or another has made an accusation and that is the politics. i want to ask you this question because it's fascinating. if you look at a political movement, it's always been the tip of the spear. you'd be talking about the left, nancy pelosi and chuck schumer will you be talking about the administration. we talked about hollywood. you'd be talking about left-wing act to this. and yes, throughout your book in instance after instance after
instance, it's a news media. i've never seen it before. >> at the news media because as a conduit to which all of that gets to us through various. i don't know that it took for the spear necessarily, but certainly the center of the funnel and it doesn't matter where it comes from. they followed orders, disseminate information. goes from democratic leadership to the party through the media, hollywood, science community and now they know what they're looking for in order to get publicity to get more brands, a self-fulfilling snake eating its own tail. the media is a center point because it's the easiest conduit and they are despite organization is saying fully addressed and documented for 30 years, they are trusted by a lot of people, inherently. you see somebody on tv, republican strategist, democratic strategist talking about what happened in north korea today. he think they must know what
they're doing because they're on tv. surely this giant news media organization. there's no such thing as republican strategists. it seems easy. i can't find that job, but you begin to realize that it is all you look good on tv, can you convey the message that they want, are you willing to play along? it becomes kabuki theater. he really has not brainwashing because i don't know that it's done for nefarious purposes. sometimes it certainly is. it is done for convenience sake come out of laziness, out of this is what we need, this person will do it like a lego piece will snap it together. >> you are not too fond of contributors on television. >> no. >> explain that peer >> arts heritage foundation in early 2000 i started off in the bookstores and that in the health policy. when there is an issue on capitol hill, they're working on
a health bill with a prescription drug benefit. my boss made a beeline to the studios of all three cnn msnbc and fox. other coworkers that aei, urban institute, they'd know, they've read the legislation, understand the ramifications. they knew this stuff. somewhere that topped and now here is a guy who we had on yesterday talking about russia in falluja. i was talking about prescription drug prices. tonight he will talk about whatever the flavor of the day is and the expertise has been shut out for convenience sake. i get it. if you've got somebody good on an issue you one of lock them down because it makes sense. news media is a business after all. but now they weigh in on everything where they have no expertise and if you watch for monday to the other they are weighing in on wildly different
things. it's hard not to become an expert on one or two issues, but everything, your international relationship, prescription, the border, how do you have time to do all of this and then you realize they don't. but they are both ahead of time. three days so come on at this time. we'll tell you the topics the day of. >> you're giving away secrets. >> i know. it bothers me. they're experts in this town, people who know their stuff and you can disagree with their conclusion that you can disagree with their facts and the heritage foundation is not far. that path that was beaten into the ground is now going over because they are not coming for the experts anymore. the people easy to get on the payroll who are good on tv and can digest an associated press story 20 minutes before it airs and speak for three minutes at the 30,000-foot level where 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 see that happening as much anymore. >> it's a tough call because tom johnson, the former president of cnn and i knew each other. i was giving them a hard time because they become people's in the o.j. trial. he called me afterwards and he said my job is to bring advertising revenue for the shareholders, the company. last year our audience are down 20%. this year came the o.j. network in our audience when it 400%. if you're in the shoes, what would you do? i think that the problem as well because the network are doing this partially because they are catering to an audience that wants pretty faces. >> i get that they have to pay the bills and they shouldn't be having like new jersey is having publicly funded media. but there has to be a point to that. you could have a network of
someone and they make at an intersection yelling at passing cars. i'm not sure it would convey a lot of information. it is not completely against contributors. if you want an opinion that's fine, but in the middle of a newscast, that's where have the problem. it's a delicate line. i support the business model, but you have access to experts. no one in the think tank will charge you to sit down for a five-minute interview. you have the opportunity to convey information. very few shows, tucker carlson show announcing that because he's a friend and i work at the daily collar. the first-person newsmakers, someone who is introducing legislation. so bring a democrat. that is so rare on cable news these days. more and that our then you can in the rest of cable news. >> or something interesting. your answer just now was longer
than a sound bite a loud today in the networks. 25 years ago crossfire and never once said that was lowbrow, lowbrow. but if you're a guest on crossfire come you're here to defend your position for half an hour against people who were loaded with facts against you for my whole team of researchers. so you know, you had one hand behind your back. today it's two minutes. comments on this. does anybody get the real point across on television in a minute and a half? >> no they don't. i'm guilty of it too. you look for something that could go viral. the network is looking for something they can clip into a 392nd clip, put in a tree, post on facebook double go viral. it is bad. it's good for businesses to get a lot of eyes on it, but it's bad for conveying information. we are in a world that move so
quick we. you know this. twitter is immediate and many journalists they will report first and check it out later. but can always correct in the digital age. imprinted with in the paper. you had to have a lockdown because that was the only way the world was going to see it. you can add an update in another editor's note or whatever. you don't have to worry about fact checking. you can't convey information when the people conveying information aren't all that interested in conveying information. they're more interested in being first. it's the death of journalism in a lot of ways. it's democratized in a lot of ways. a lot more 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 all rumor gets around three times before the truth gets pants on. >> micro-aggressions. you had a good time with
micro-aggressions with this book. first of all, explain what a micro-aggression is and then try to explain to name why they just showed up and why we didn't have micro-aggression five years ago. >> a lot of people in here's a trigger warning for you. a micro-aggression is some sort of offense, usually racial, gender specific is so subtle if you and i were talking i could micro-press with you and i wouldn't notice that i done it. you would notice i've done it, but third-party observer might have picked up on the subtleties of it, found some obscure way that was offensive and then coming to tell you you should be offended about what i said. he then would be offended in this as a college campus, demanded an apology and i would give you the apology. it is so subtle, so absurd. the reason we have it as i'm not somebody who's going to deny racism exists. i don't think anyone would deny racism like this. 330 million people, 730 on the
planet. there will be and not pull no matter what. we have to acknowledge they've made significant progress. in 1820 and i read about in the book, 160 million people in the country in 4 million members of the, the bakery and antiracist organization. that's about three by seven, 320% of the population. in 2,061,000,330,000,000 people, the southern poverty law center of all places estimated about 6500 members of the clan. that is a rounding error in go from that in 100 years to a rounding error is amazing. to put it another way and i peppered the book with jokes to try to make it a fun read. the wnba celebrated the 2016th season because of their success in attendance. average attendance was 7644th people. on any given random wnba game,
the least popular support, or 1144 more people at that game that members of the clan of the whole country. we should be celebrating that. we shouldn't fight the football of the five-yard line. but that's amazing progress for society as diverse as ours in 100 years. yet we are told this is a racist country and we had to create micro-aggression. we had to create something ridiculous like micro-aggressions. americans are the greatest country in the world and you have to be born in scotland. somehow that's afraid to you because i'm saying you're not the greatest. we had to create something like that to keep the fuel billing in the outrage machine that we are a horrible racist country, horribly discriminating country when it's really garbage. >> would you agree to me that it's also a visual that sells on television and that is the reason why it is projected. when you think about, i don't
know what else to call this person who did the shooting in north carolina. but the one photograph with the confederate flag. that became the reason why you tear down the statue in new orleans. there was one despicable person holding the flag. but that visual bush on everywhere. as we see the visuals of the and it doesn't exist, do you believe the media keep it alive because it's a visual? >> it's a good visual for politics. if you don't want people to think rational come to get them riled up, angry, afraid to most of the things you apologize for your life are not things you said, sitting behind your desk sipping a cup of tea thinking about it clearly. it's 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 in the way through the room, whatever it is.
emotion overrides logic. if you can keep people thinking the democrats spent the last two years it's open season on young black men. the data doesn't show that. the facts to show that to 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 were, there were four confederate monuments and we forget that maryland was a confederate state. it just wasn't able to secede because link address of the legislature. but they tore those down and they celebrated the democratic power structure. the next year we had the highest number of murders in the city's history. no problem was solved, but it was something with symbolism over substance, which has been a theme of the democrats and conservatives like media research would play now. symbolism over substance. 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 make them feel good about it. all you have to do is this. and then you have to maybe save a little more money to be ready for retirement. that is no fun. but telling somebody to feel bad and then giving them the key to feel good is the drug dealers model quite frankly. >> does the left want revolution on these outrageous issues? it means whatever solution, a new problems on this confederate thing out there talking about having to rename the capital of texas because even austin did not come out in support some mexican who wanted to end slavery. they want to rename the capital. >> a confederate leader even though he died 15 years before the civil war.
i don't know how works but if there's time machine technology back then i'd like to know about it. when you saw the border crisis in the separation of families by law by the way, democrats demanded they be put back together. okay, did that. now they need to all be released. there is never enough. they have their agenda. they're like the terminator. they can't be reasoned with. they will never stop until you're completely destroyed. >> i want to read you a quote. i want you to expand on it. the double standards don't stop the scandals. liberal lectures conservatives on the tone of the rhetoric while engaging in the wildest rhetoric ever to lake city humans mouth. are you suggesting hypocrisy here? >> yes, i am. examples in the book, aji salzburger, such the victim of nepotism ensured he earned that job who runs the new york times.
he met with the president and says wow, calling the press enemies of the people will have repercussions. you could be putting journalist lives in danger. absolutely you should not threaten journalists. you shouldn't threaten anybody, but you can pretend -- i did a google search. i found several examples of "new york times" running offense to compare donald trump to hitler, republicans, we had on cable news but they did the same thing. if you think calling journalists enemies of the people is bad, i could probably be done without. i think it's a little harsh than it needs to be. but what he think of calling the president of the united states hitler? the party seen an example. james hodgkinson lasher and virginia opening fire on republicans on a baseball field because he had been told time and time again by the mainstream media, those journalists now that the republican health care plan curtailment of personal cost upwards of 40 or 50,000 lines per year.
if you believe that, don't you almost have a moral obligation to act. if you believe adolf hitler resides in the white house the white house, don't you almost have a moral obligation to act? they don't cover it that way. they look at their own hands is clean. it is apocryphal obviously, but it's comically apocryphal. i don't recognize this as a publisher of "the new york times" doesn't recognize karl rove updating us on pages and said trump was that hitler, but it's close. 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 top and he just to take it. you put the driver away and take the pot out onto the green. >> i find it fascinating that culturally the left is all about moral relativism. unless they themselves speak in which it is 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 disagreeable person. what is it about this moral certitude that so many of them just can't get off their high horse. >> it is the emotional appeal that i've read about. if you believe your enemy is history's greatest monster, nothing they say is valid. nothing they do is valid and you have every right to hate them, despise them and reject them refuse to listen to them. it is brilliant marketing in a lot of ways painting conservatives as these monsters. it's wrong, a liar, fraud, dangerous. as we saw on the baseball field last year and i hope you don't see again although i fear that we will, but it's much easier. they don't have to make a case.
if you believe that you are a nazi no matter what you say, i can dismiss it out of hand. a hunter rebutted or respond to it. the charge of racism again going back to that. it is thrown around. racism in this country, but tons of racism in this country but they are drowned out in the people being hurt because we are not hearing it. if you disagree with barack obama, you're a racist. doesn't matter if you've held the position for 20 years. i oppose bill clinton. was i a redneck? nobody made that charge but the left on it but should easier to go around but these pejorative terms rather than make a coherent intelligent argument. i don't blame them. most people affected were from their couch would. it would be a much easier life. but it's not advancing the ball. it's nondefense instability and is not really winning an argument because you get people
to your side you refuse to engage. refusing to engage is a winning than we are paying the price in winning the argument. >> we talked about low-voltage contributors in the news. ask over the low-voltage intellectuals in hollywood. it seems like you understand this. most conservatives don't understand. don't understand the power of hollywood that you understand the cultural power. speak to that. >> enter breitbart famously said that politics is downstream from culture. you see it on the screen, small screen coming music and eventually someone will legislate something. it's absolutely true. when i've read a column, two columns a week for townhall. i read a column about hollywood. i occasionally check the comments come a sort of a vanity thing, but i do it and there's always people there who say i don't go to movies. i got rid of cable.
i don't watch tv. congratulations. i'm not saying you have to go to the movies everyone or watch every tv show. but you should be aware of it because it's important growing up most people are watching the news, are reading the newspapers. they are learning about things from pop culture. if you go onto netflix some look at the documentary and you just want something on the you could ignore, you put on a documentary. ego in the documentary section of netflix, there's literally every liberal fever dream in there. food is killing you, gina claymont affected, climate change is coming for you. capitalism is evil. all these documentaries and air quotes are up there with a disclaimer that these are documentaries. you have a point of view producer activism films, not documentaries. and then you've got to
mainstream movies that sort of humor in these left-wing messages. it's not beating you over the head of with it but it's getting into your head. if you don't pay attention to that, you are going to lose in the long run because people can quote movies much more than politicians and certainly much more from the news or any study. that sticks with you. you'll need a bigger boat. everybody knows that. it's a way to get into people's heads come into people's psyche and believe things that aren't necessarily true and then impact their vote. >> you had a statistic in the last how many years, 62 nominees for best picture, but only two of them had grossed more than $100 million to only two of them were really popular. the rest were. >> thereabout message movies. they are about the liberal
feel-good movies. hollywood is its own industry. they can award anybody they want. somehow there is that some kind of message behind this. the argument one year when there were all nominees who are white, how could this possibly happen. they then changed the criteria and open up the voting base to bring in more people of color and more women. there was no argument maybe we should make better movies. but we can make your scripts. they control the money and what movies are made. he's made a ton of money but it's not going to be an oscar-winning there or filmmaker because they generally aren't all that good. they're not dramas, not even -- the end result rather than it's much easier than dealing with the real problem that when they make movies by minority
directors they tend to the godwins,, the stoner movies rather than doing a serious drama. that changed a little bit, but it's kind of ironic to be lectured on these things from hollywood. republicans conservatives have no sway in hollywood. it is them that are doing it. to me to movement, harvey weinstein, kevin spacey. that was then. a little trick the left does whatever the left is caught doing something. the argument was this is a problem for all of us. a societal problem. i didn't play grab us with anybody. i didn't do this. we didn't do this. i guarantee you the farmer in iowa didn't do this. the automaker of michigan didn't do this. they donate it to the democrats. that is how they absolve themselves.
it is a societal problem. >> this picture is right above. when conservatives complain about the media, both talk about msnbc. they'll talk about cnn. question, who is more powerful, anybody at msnbc for stephen colbert are. it is not very often -- msnbc goes viral. a lot of conservatives humor hate watch msnbc. stephen colbert are as the cover but i'm a comedian i'm just making a joke. 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
then when they called them out, he says i'm just a comedian again. the intermingle fact and fiction and it's not even jokes anymore. the monologues are political speeches that with punchlines. your favorite band being interviewed. you are being inundated with subtle half-truths and flat out lies some time. it is much more powerful that way because it is on every day. a lot of people watch it. you tend to remember jokes much longer than you remember anything else. he is much more effective and dangerous. >> wait a minute. what about johnnie carson. all of these were conservative
republicans. why was it okay for them, but not okay for stephen colbert or john stuart or john oliver. >> so it's the same thing? >> johnnie carson would 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 it. i want talk about medicare for all. but recent jokes around that whereas let's make fun of everybody. john wayne and jimmy stuart are conservative republicans also want to be crazier when they had a movie coming out. they didn't have social media. they didn't have viral videos. johnny person you talk about what they said the night before around the watercooler and that was it to the next day you might talk about the following night. >> can you imagine a dean martin
roasts but may prove i was all about making you laugh, but in a very reverent way. don rickles would be putting charges right now. you can't have fun anymore. you spend a lot of time talking about the southern poverty law center. there is a quote and i want you to comment on three different levels. a bias incident is speech or expression motivated in a whole part by bias or prejudice. it differs than a hate crime that no criminal activity is involved. the first question to you, how wealth is biased motivated other than by bias?
it isn't hiatus prejudice? >> not the way they defined it. you have read in your beard. if i call you carrot top, you could report that as a bias. [inaudible] >> i know. and i made it as such. i'm glad you took it that way. [laughter] >> someone is going to colin about micro-aggression. >> that the level of it. we had 4 million members of the clan in 1920 down to rounding error of the population. there's an entire industry, the southern poverty law center. they want to keep raising the money, raking in money and having money. they have to continually redefine what the problem is in pretend they're not redefining what the problem is. it was instituted after the election of donald trump. it was an outrage.
there were bomb threats of those horrible and i was a huge story and then they found out it was a formal journalist from a black eye in st. louis and a jewish teenager living in israel. were they ever convicted? who knows. the media stopped covering it. there were instances of racism but not nearly as often, not nearly as big and most people are shunned so they have to redefine and there's being beaten in the streets because of their race or they have to redefined it to the point that you say something like i'm an american first. that is the micro-aggression. the level of insanity that is treated almost on the same level from a statistical standpoint because when you throw it into a bowl of statistics is just a number with a bunch of other numbers could be a beat down burning across on somebody's lawn can say in america is the
greatest country in the world. you throw them into the back piggyback weight changes in account the weight of the vatican don't count the actual meat on the bone. >> a word that gets me is that there's a suggestion suggestion that you write it down and were keeping tabs on you. >> this happen on college campuses in the left has fetishized victimhood and made it almost something to aspire to. i've been discriminated against because of my sexuality or whatever. people at higher to it. people find new and creative ways to paint themselves as victims and of course there is a hero fighting the victim. see this with a hate crime hoax i detailed in the book. the social justice warriors if they don't find it someplace else or inundated through high school, through college but this country is racist,comments in this country is sick and you
have to fight it and fight conservatives, republicans and even in different people. they are the problem. they bust out of their classrooms but everywhere it to stomach. the country is founded on it, so they will change the world and fight this stuff. >> they then spray paint nazi swastikas. they write racial slurs on our dry erase board and say look what i found and eventually you don't hear about, they want to raise awareness. they want to raise awareness of the issues. they knocked out there but they can't find it. it doesn't click in the brain that if they can't find it it was supposed to be everywhere. but maybe it's not everywhere. maybe it's much less than they been told and start to question things. the ability to question has been drummed out of the social justice orders 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 the font of wisdom. you have another term. i forget which you called it. i'll see if somewhere in my notes. but it occurs to me, talking about bias incidents, you probably document 200, 30400 in this book where they were micro-aggressions if we wanted to call them against conservatives. did you propose the southern poverty law center has addressed a single one you brought up? >> no. there's no money in it. they know where their sugar daddies are. half a billion dollars endowment now. something ridiculous like that. they've got a business model that worked. so they are not going to stray from that. just as an example if you're
getting a lot of money from tom stier, the billionaire who wants to impeach the president then you know what he wants, you are not then going to say or some other billionaire over here who wants the opposite of that. we will try and appeal to them, too. you've got your sugar daddy and you're going to stick with it. they don't fight poverty at all. >> 1% of the money goes to -- >> agosta bogus studies in the maintain websites and a lot of it ends up in the pockets may trouble the first country first class and business class. there is a business model behind all of this. nobody does this for free. nobody will get up in the morning no matter how how much they believe in the cost of the foot soldier does for the people running the show and how did the organization, they are not missing a meal. they are doing alright. >> and case our viewers don't
notice because they've never heard about it, what happened with a hate crime map of the southern poverty law center. what was the consequence? >> they were housed in shot by a guy who brought in a thoughtful chick filet and a gun bent on killing as many people at the family research center which is a christian organization that believes marriage is between a man and a woman. the southern poverty law center but there he together enlisted the hate group in washington d.c. that went in there, followed the building manager who's a hero who got shot was able to stop the would-be killer and was on fire by the southern poverty law center which is ironic because the left then put a map of their payloads website that nobody saw. no one went to the website and saw the crosshairs on gabby gifford's congressional district saying we are targeting this. that was by paul krugman at "the
new york times" and "the new york times" in general as being the inspiration behind the shooting of gabbard giffords encoding of six people and wounding five others out there, which is insane. it's double standard. the southern poverty law center was left out of stories about the shooting in the family research. as recently as last year "the new york times" editorial board proven they don't even read their own paper cited the crosshairs on sarah payloads website shooting of gabby gifford's. they then had to issue a painful and embarrassing retraction. do you see how once something gets out there, if sticks of people. that is why they don't want the fact that was the one who shot at republicans. they don't want that the shooter and the shooter did the research center was inspired by the southern poverty law center. they've stopped.
when "the new york times" editorial board, not some reporter posting something on twitter, and editorial signed by the board something in the same issue by the way. you realize what were up against once something gets into the consciousness of the public is tough to get it out. going back to dylan roof, that terrific guy who committed the racist murderers, he wasn't supported and motivated by an organization. i'm not suggesting that at all. he was following the date tapes of the hate math and calling it -- >> agosta back to the issue in a filter rows to halls of 1600 pennsylvania avenue. don't you have a moral obligation to act if you believe the organization from the southern poverty law center is a very diplomatic, it is hate.
if not they are bad you think of this way on this issue. they're either good or bad and if you believe your good, you have to be against god. so you label the family research council. the group that is harming people even though all they're doing is holding opinions. if you're off in the head, you can see how somebody would have a moral obligation to act. we have to stamp out a. well, you go when you try to do it. the southern poverty law center acts like a dealer in vegas. were done. we didn't have anything to do at this in the media helps them stick out the back door. they ignore the connection and the fact he had a printed version of the map on him. he said that's how we found out about this group and how we found out where they were. was there very map, which is basically a map to the stars
homes with people not worthy of existing in this country according to the political left. the media let them do that. and again, you're not suggesting that i'm not suggesting the southern poverty law center said go and shoot somebody to shoot as many people as you can. >> isn't that exactly what the left does if somebody shoots somebody. the nra was fine. >> they blame the nra. >> when we had the shooter in colorado as the batman movie, brien ross of abc news found a similar name has >> has been fired. >> finally. he was allowed to resign. they pounded a name on a tea party group website. the bombing up in the boston marathon have been on patriots' day. there's your organization and all these people say we don't know what the motivation was that his patriots' day, tax day, so the right-wingers say
government, so this is probably done and it turns out it wasn't. it was terrorism. they jumped to the original conclusion and may god, otherwise no one would hold them accountable because they quickly move on. an internal investigation but with the george zimmerman 9-1-1 call was edited by nbc news to make it sound like he was racist. they took it completely out of context, cropped quotes in half and placed it back together. that's not by accident. that is not we accidentally hit the edit button. i was very deliberate. we don't know who did that. we were told that they were disciplined somehow. we don't know who did it, still on the job. it is a different set of standards. >> do you see this now emerging with social media, facebook, twitter, shenanigans going on. >> we see occasionally "the new york times" "new york times" comes out and says to her
reporter service new social media policy don't give your opinion. we're not getting as many retreats, not as much follows, not as much traffic from this. so they loose in the rain. never announced they are loosening the reins. but it is dangerous in the journalists, we all know they had opinions. a group of tom brokaw, peter jennings and dan rather. i knew where they were coming from but they were so blatant about it. now there's no ambiguity about it. they're still out there telling the world, telling conservatives to get bent on a regular basis. >> as i write the book one of the things for journalism really went off the rails and it was an ally so don't know what it was like before, but watergate seems to be really where it went off the rails. journalists became celebrities with watergate. they became fabulously wealthy for trade by robert redford in woodward's case and a very bit
of generosity, crowe bernstein was portrayed by dustin hoffman. a very handsome man especially back then. they were invited to parties. they made millions of dollars in journalists up-and-coming wanted to be like them. and then they became activists. the editors at the time tried to pump the brakes on that. that's our job. we go with the facts go. the people who wanted to make a difference are now the editors. they don't want to pump the brakes. the social justice lawyers don't want to pump the brakes. we are in for a world of hate because that's no holds barred. being slapped under somebody's byline. i feel bad for the future. my daughter wonders sold is never really going -- is going to be happy is if google and shall have to give multiple sources on the same story and try and cobble together the
truth from all those sources. >> so, why does the left hate donald trump? >> because he's not then. >> we only have 10 minutes left. we could go another hour. >> there is a visceral hatred are not just the media. the media, too. everyone on the left hates this man. the last 20 years before he announced he was running to demand. they took his money, invited him to their parties. they went to his party. morning joe and they were pals. why do they hate him? because he's not one of them anymore. it doesn't matter. by 80% friend is number 20% enemy. i butchered that but you get the general idea. it is my 99.9% is my enemy. there is no middle ground. either fully on board or you are fully out.
they can't handle the fact that hillary clinton lost. as we see with a fresh investigation there has to be summed up for his external source as to why she lost. it can't be after 30 years of knowing her, the american people said i'm not interested. there has to be something else. they can't accept their ideas didn't tell. they can't accept that there's a large percentage of this country who liked having integrity, were welcoming of immigrants but it's not an open door. you want to come into my house, knock on my door, don't claim in the window. they don't accept that. that's their future business model. the melting pot to a series of chafing dishes and they can be moved like chess pieces against each other. and you can pick people with less strategy. donald trump doesn't care about any of that.
his tweets, his comments from the podium and rallies or whatever you never really just pick somebody at random and this, that or the other thing, he is always hitting back. he hit back harder but i've never seen him actually pick a fight. i've seen him finish a fight. i do read his tweets sometimes and go probably shouldn't have said it that way. but he never just randomly at the tuesday you write about how rosie o'donnell's a horrible person and send that out to the world and is always responding. the left hates him because he's better at it than they are. they will certainly win an election and then hot. to win an election in washington d.c. and san francisco and los angeles. the rest of the country they lose. donald trump even though he's from new york and he's a billionaire, there's something about him the guy in in
wisconsin it 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. >> said the media are constantly attacking trump. everybody on the left is constantly attacking trump for lying. where were they? you talk about this in their book. with the fact checkers, with the president who said if you like your plan you can keep your plan. >> over 30 times he said this. >> what is amazing is they fact checked out four times. one time they did it while he was a candidate. there is no legislation, no bill whatsoever they declared it to be true. they fact check it to mark times throughout the first couple years of his presidency and it was varying degrees of truth. it became a little bit clearer, but they found a way to work
around the and declared it true. it was 2013 was declared the light of the year five years after they've been told dozens of times. no longer was barack obama going to face the voters. no way to hold him accountable for that. they finally declared it lie of the year. the tortured logic of how they declared it three times. they didn't announce that they declared it three times. they said this is the lengthier because people have lost their health insurance. if you control the unit of measure come you're always going to be the tallest, smartest, the best looking, funniest. it doesn't matter. that's 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 on twitter. the worst thing to happen since
journalism. they ran six fact checks that all of them against donald trump. everything they said they fact check they declared a lie. they run one single fact check against hillary clinton which gives the impression everything was straight from the bible absolutely true. one of the things they fact check and declared ally from donald trump was when he said that hillary clinton had acid washed her server. choose the program bleach and it, referring to it as acid wash. hillary clinton didn't physically dip her server into a bat of hcl. i was declared ally. she did use bleach bed, but not acid. you have to have something off in your brain to be watching a debate ended it to that level and it's a visceral dislike that you're ready to stick on everything. i've had girlfriends when it's
not just working out in the more you begin 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's not a science guy. he he has an engineering degree to try to do a standup comedy and was ultimately became bill nye the science guy. it was a great show. he showed you how to do experiments and you actually learn things. because he chose the middle line, he's been viewed as a media if there is a storm, an issue of climate change, he's on the cbs morning show and is pontificating about how we are all killing the planet in every rain storm and flood everywhere is because of climate change. he has no idea that it is a
science background. you want to know about climate, the same goes for neil degrasse pacing. brilliant guy, astrophysicists. no doubt that he's brilliant. deep space is the antithesis of climate. you want to know what's going on pluto, you want to know what caused the floods in houston, as neil degrasse tyson on your television said we're all going to die you need to want to work at it all your fault, stop exhaling. it is the ability of television to give somebody expertise that they haven't heard. if you throw the science guy, you think he must know what he's talking about. if you really look into his past come he doesn't. he knows more about science than i do simply because he spent 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've been a fascinating one of the great intellectual leaders for the left is beyoncé. i'm sure he cares about mother earth. that is not an expert on these things. it's remarkable they put these people forward. >> leonardo dicaprio turns out documentary after documentary about climate change. meanwhile, he loads his party up with victoria's secret models and nothing against party after victoria's secret models. the world would be better off with both. they can't claim to be an environmentalist. one thing about the left is they will not live the way they seek to impose on others unless or until they impose on others and then only maybe. al gore lives basically in a hollowed out shopping mall that he keeps probably 68 degrees in
the summer, but he'll tell you you have to turn the fan on and walk around shirtless in your own home because it's good for the planet. it's hypocrisy. i don't have a problem with anybody having their say. but when they don't do it themselves and that's what drives me nuts. leonardo dicaprio in beyoncé of the world have a carbon footprint of a small country. nothing against it. i think it's great to be that successful. but to tell somebody else that they can't. >> you know, that's extraordinary. we only have a couple minutes. but hollywood preaches tolerance day and night. that is the most intolerant industry in america today. am i right or wrong on that? >> absolutely right. hold any opinion as long as the one held by everybody. you are run out of town. james woods, the great oscar-nominated, his agent dropped him because he didn't want to work with conservatives.
james was a member of mensa, very smart guy 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, lost pretty much everything. she's pretty much done. not that she shouldn't have been scorned and ridiculed and forced to apologize, but ran out of the business completely while james kahn, director of the guardians of the galaxy movie 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 studios saying he should be rehired. he's a good man. this was a long time ago. forgive and forget and move on. if it were for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all. so i don't -- i don't want
special treatment. i just want the same treatment. hold me to the same standard. whatever we all agree upon. there is a move by the left now hope james gunn. we need to keep going -- quit going back through trees. the left pioneered this to try and ruin conservatives. now that we finally after 10 or 20 years of singing we are not going to play this game coming now we will hold you to your road standards in the left hates it. like i said, i just want people to be held to the same standards. i don't care necessarily what the standards are as long as they got the same and we don't get that. >> your book is trained for, but i love the title. "outrage, inc.." it has been a delight talking to you this hour. i hope it is a monumental best-seller. >> appreciated. thanks so much.