tv After Words Derek Hunter Outraged Inc. CSPAN September 23, 2018 12:00pm-1:01pm EDT
we believed that no one is above the law and no one is below the law. >> watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> next on book tvs "after words", political columnist derek hunter offers his thoughts on how progressives influenced academia, the media and pop culture to advance their agenda. he's interviewed by bozell, founder and president of the media research center.>> ..
i found talk radio and i started listening to that and i found it fascinating and esther listen to rush limbaugh when he came to detroit when i was a kid. before that there was bruce williams and sally jesse raphael. it was all human beings talking. nerdy may be but fun. i found that much more engaging. then in college in the late 90s when the clinton scandals broke i was going to tv. i would watch hardball at five. rick at six. hardball again at seven sometimes. o'reilly, hannity and combs come sometimes. sometimes i would read watch hardball at 11. all the media was getting information. i had interviews with newsmakers, they had several conversations about serious issues. somewhere in the mid 2000 bush hitler became a thing. the left lost their mind and
cable news morphed into the same 12 people having conversations that if they happen at a restaurant table next to come you would leave. it bothered me because i love consuming information. it's harder and harder to find. then you begin to see this pattern on the left, in the book where it's all about appealing to the motion. all but keeping people angry and are afraid. alternative is to sell them something, selling your policies. liberal policies don't sell free will take middle america. look at the map, people want to be left alone. i thought where these people doing this? are doing what doesn't work. more people watch house hunters international been seen in. i'm one of them. then you begin to see this as a strategy that's that it's all f the plan. they've been sitting around and smoke-filled room for out this plan that it is something that occurs in the highest my doesn't need to be given orders.
they just know. i don't remember it because guys pointed out, in 2000 when george w. bush then candidate george w. bush announced dick cheney, he found himself to be vice president and suddenly the word gravitas which a don't think you could've found in a transcript for the previous ten years at any network newscast was everywhere. i began to pieces together. it really is, it's not a conspiracy because that involves mind planning. you don't need to be told. but he knows what to do. i thought i'd of people know this. i don't know if people understand, they get the blatant waste be device works, the bias in hollywood and site works. the subtle way that buys by proxy which is one of the chapters. >> host: it's not bias you look at. it's outrageous. it's beyond bias. >> guest: it is. the left has an innate ability to appeal to emotion at the right doesn't have.
we can go and present this slide after slide in powerpoint presentation and say this is why, here it is irrefutable, there it is. the other side will trot out the worst-case american present it at the norm, appeal to emotion than safe you are only one paycheck away from this happening to you. it scares the hell out of people. the act on fear. you remember when you were scared. you don't remember the dry lectures are learning how to do proofs and algebra class. you forget that stuff but if you appeal to emotion, good bad or indifferent, as long as it spurs something in your brain, you to do remember it better. the left is so much better than the xi jinping they're able to sell a tripod to people. >> host: with the exception of bob dole for nobody cares about, you look at every republican president or presidential candidate nominee going back to
eisenhower, and the left of 1.0 has made the acquisition they're going to get us into nuclear war. war. that is the politics of fear. i want to ask you this question because it's fascinating. if you look at a political movement, it's always been when you think about the tip of the spear, you think congressional leaders. your tongue but the less you can talk about nancy pelosi or chuck schumer or you'd be talking about administrations, the clinton administration. you talk about hollywood you would talk about left-wing activist. and yet throughout your book in instance after instance after instance the tip of the spear is the news media. have you ever seen this before? >> guest: it's the conduit for which all of that communicates through all that gets to us through there. the photo. i don't know if this is the tip of the spear but it is the center of the funnel.
it doesn't matter where it comes from. if older orders, disseminate information. goes from the democratic leadership through the party, through the media, to hollywood to the science community now they know what they're looking for in order to get publicity to get more grants, a self filling snake eating its tail. the media is a center point because it's the easiest conduit and are, despite what your organization has thankfully addressed and documented for 30 years, they are trusted by a lot of people inherently. you see somebody on tv industry republican strategist or democratic strategist talking about north korea. you think they must do what they're doing because they are on tv. surely this joint news organization, there's no such shop republican or democratic strategist. it seems easy, all you do is talk on tv. i can't find that job. you begin to realize that it is,
if you look at it on tv and you convey the message that they want, are you willing to play along? it becomes kabuki theater. it really is not brainwashing because i don't know that it's done for nefarious for the firt of the time. sometimes it certainly is but it is down for convenience sake, out of laziness, it is that out of just this is what we need this person will do it like a lego piece we will snap a together. it's disappointing. you need journalism. >> host: you are not too fond of contributors on television. explain that tragic i worked at the heritage foundation in the early 2000 right out of college, started out in the bookstore. when there was an issue up on capitol hill and we get healthcare bill, adding a prescription drug benefit, my boss bob moffat made a beeline to the studios of all three scene, innocently see and fox. so did other coworkers at aei, the urban institute, all the
policy analyst with it because they read the legislation. they understand the ramifications. some of that stopped and now here's a guy who get on yesterday talking about russia collusion. now we starting a prescription drug prices. tomorrow he will talk about whatever else the flavor of the day is and you realize its expertise has been shut out for convenience six. i did it, if you have somebody really good on an issue you want to lock them down to stop your competitors because it makes sense. news media is business after all. all. now they weigh in on everything where they have no expertise. if you watch from wayne state to the other weighing in on widely different things. it's hard enough to become expert on one or two issues but everything comes your international relations, international law to do with russia, prescriptions for the border? how do you have time to do all this? in you realize they don't but they are booked at a time.
they are told into the visual, at this time. we will take the topics the day of. >> host: you are giving away seekers. >> guest: i know but it bothers me some who loves -- the expert in this town. are people who know their stuff and you can disagree with the conclusions but you can't disagree with her fax. they are not getting -- heritage foundation is not far from all those that works now and the past that was beaten into the ground has now grown over because they are not come up with experts. they come in for the people who were easy to get, who were on the payroll who were going to get can i just an associate press store 20 minutes before air and speak for three minutes at the 30,000-foot level where nobody learns anything and that's supposed to be the purpose of journalism is to educate people about what's going on in the world and i don't see that happening much more. >> host: it's a tough call because tom johnson from president of cnn and i knew each other, i was once giving him a hard time because he had become
the o.j. network during the o.j. trial. he called me afterwards and he said, my job is to bring advertising revenue for the shareholders, the company. he said last year our audience would down 25% the issue we became the o.j. network and audience went up 40%. if you're in my shoes what would you do? i think that's a problem as well because the networks are doing this partially because they are tailoring to an audience that wants pretty faces. >> guest: i get that and have to pay the bills. they shouldn't on the public dole. we shouldn't be having like new jersey having publicly funded media, but there has to be a point to that. you could have a network of somebody standing naked at an intersection on at passing cars. that would get good numbers but i'm not sure it would convey a lot of information. it's not completely against contributors. if you want to get opinions, that's fine but in the middle of a news broadcast when you bring
people to give opinion that's why have the problem. it's a delicate line. i understand the business model and i support the business model but you have access to that. they're not cost anything. nobody at think tank is going to charge to sit down for five min interview. you have the opportunity to convey information. there are very few shows, tucker carlson show, i'm not just saying because he's a friend but tucker carlson had actual first-person newsmakers, somebody who is introducing legislation. he will bring in a democrat. that is so rare on cable news these days that you can learn more in that our then you can the rest of cable news. >> host: there's something interesting, your answer just now was longer than any soundbite allowed on television today. think about that. 25 years ago crossfire was the big screening and everybody said that was lowbrow, lowbrow. but if you are a guest on crossfire you had to defend your
position for half an hour against people who were loaded with facts against you from whole team of researchers. you had one hand behind your back and you had to fight. today it's two minutes. i don't know, comment on this, does anybody get a real point across in television in and in and out? >> guest: no, they don't. i'm guilty of it. you look for when the something they can go viral looking for some physical viral, the network is looking for something they can clip into a 39-second clip, post on facebook that will go viral. it's bad, good for business because you get a lot of ice on it but it's bad for conveying information. we are in a world that moves so quickly. you know this. twitter is immediate and so many journalists a we will report first and check out they do. we can't correct it. that's the digital age. once it was in the paper you had that lockdown because there was the will to seek and that was on
the way the world would see. now you post it online and you can add and update and you can add another editors note that would ever get you have to worry about fact checking. you can't convey information when the people conveying information are not all that interested in conveying information. they are more interested in being first. it's the death of journalism in a lot of ways. it has democratized it. there are a lot more people who can put their stories out there. i'm not sure that's necessarily good because well, you see fake news over the place. you can make it at the a rumor gets around the world three times before the truth gets its pants on. >> host: let's go back to your book. micro aggressions. you had a good time with micro aggressions. first of all, explain what a micro-aggression is and then tried to explain to me why they just showed up and why we didn't have micro aggressions five years ago. >> guest: here's a trigger warning for you.
a a micro-aggression some sort f offense come usually racial or gender specific that is so subtle that if you and i were talking could michael address against you and it would knows i had done it. you wouldn't notice i done it but some third-party observer might have picked up on the subtleties of it, found some obscure way that was offensive and income in and tell you that you should be offended by what i said to become offended. this is a college campus. demand apology from the adult dvd apology. it is so subtle, so absurd, the reason have is i'm not somebody who's going to deny racism existed i don't think anyone deny racism still exist. there are 330 million people in this country. 7 billion people on the planet. there will be jerks in that pool no matter what. we have to does we made significant progress. in 1929, i write about this in the book in 1920 there are 106 million people in the country, and 4 million members of the kkk, the big granddaddy
racist organization. that's about 3.8% of the population. in 2016 when we at 339 people, the souther poverty law center of all places estimated there were about 6500 members of the klan. that is a rounding error in population. to go from that in 100 years to a rounding error is amazing. put it another way and this is i peppered the book with jokes to try to make it a fun a fun rea. the wnba celebrated the 2016 season because of their success in attendance. the average attendance was 7644 people. that means on any given random game, the least popular professional sport on a plant growth, there were 1144 more people at that game and are members of the klan in the whole country. we should be celebrating that. we shouldn't spike the football on the five-yard line.
they're still racism but that's amazing progress for society as diverse as ours in 100 years. yet we are told this is a racist country. we had to create micro aggressions to type back your question, create something ridiculous like micro aggressions, merrick is a great country in the world and job and be born in scotland, some of that's an affront to you because i am saying you are not the greatest. we had to create something like that to keep the fuel going in the outrage machine of we are horrible racist country, a horribly discriminated country. when it is really garbage. >> host: would you agree with me it's also a visual that sells on television and that is a reason why it's projected? think about that, i don't know what else to call this scam person who did the shooting in north carolina, and there was that one photograph of him with the confederate flag. that became the reason why you
tear down the statue in new orleans. it was one despicable person holding the flag, but that visually show february. as we see the visions of the kkk and it virtually doesn't exist. do you believe the media keeps it alive because it's a good visual? >> guest: it's a good visual and it's good politics. if you want people not to think rationally, you keep them angry, keep them afraid. i guess most the bench bench of apologized for in your life were not things you said call me sitting behind a desk sipping a cup of tea thinking about it clearly. something you did in heat of the moment and you can beckett said sorry or you curse because you kick the coffee-table underway for the room, whatever it is. emotion overrides logic and if you can keep people thinking, the democrats spent the last years telling us it's open season on young black men. the data doesn't show that. the facts that show that. the media shows that because they find stores and focus on
them and exclusion of other stories. assess what happened with dylann roof, that little monster, and the statues, i was in baltimore at the time and they were four confederate monuments in baltimore. forget that mountain was confederate state. lincoln arrested the legislature but they tore those down. they celebrated, the democratic party structure, addressed this problem. the next you advise number of murders recorded in the cities history. no problem was solved but it was something symbolism over substance which is benefiting of the democrats and conservatives have a point that out come symbolism over substance. it sells, it works. it is appealing to peoples feelings is much easier to sell. you can make someone feel bad about something and then you give them the way to feel good. all you have to do is this. if you tell somebody logically something and then maybe sable the more money you ready for
retirement, that's no fun. that's a tough sell. but telling somebody to feel bad and then giving them the key to feel good, it's a drug dealers model frankly. >> host: does the left want resolution on these outrageous -- it seems like whatever they get they want more. whatever solution, they find you and your problem so that on this confederate thing now they're talking about having to rename the capital of texas because stephen austin did not come out and support some mexican who wanted to end slavery. it want to rename the capital. >> guest: "newsweek" referred to stephen austin as confederate leader even though he died 15 feet before the civil war. i'm not sure that works but if there was a time machine technology back then i want to know about it. we saw with the border crisis and separation families by law by the way. the democrats demanded they be put back together. okay, did that. then the solution socialists ny
needed all release. there is never enough. they have their agenda. they are 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 lecture conservatives on the tone of the rhetoric while engaging in some of the most violent rhetoric ever. are you suggesting hypocrisy? >> guest: i am. there are examples in the book. there was an example recently, a publisher, a victim of nepotism, i'm sure he earned that job, runs the "new york times." he met with the president and said calling the press themes of the people will have repercussions. you could be putting journalist lives in danger. we're getting threats. absolutely you should not threaten anybody but you can't pretend that i did a google
search about this. i found several examples of "new york times" op-ed thicken for donald trump to hitler, republicans, the nazis or hit on cable news when you did the same thing. if you think that calling journalists enemies of the people is bad, i could probably stand with that. i think that is harsh event 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 last year in virginia open fire on republicans on a baseball field. why? because he had been told by the mainstream media, those journal is now afraid, that the health care plan and the repeal of replacement obamacare would cost upwards of 50,000 lives for you. he feebly that can don't you have a moral obligation to act? if you believe adolf hitler resides in the white house, don't you almost have a moral obligation to act? they don't have it that way. they don't think of it that way. they look at their own hands as clean. it's apocryphal obviously but it
comically apocryphal. how they don't recognize this. the new times doesn't recognize charles blow voted op-ed on his own pages of said trump isn't hitler. but he's close. i don't know how else to point it out except just to point it out. a lot of times the left did you attack and you just have to take it. you put the drive away and you take the putter out on the green and put it in the hole. >> host: i find it fascinating that culturally the left is all about moral relativism, unless they themselves speak, in which is moral certitude, and to oppose them. right now anyone listen to you from the left is probably thinking about how much she despises you because simply
because you disagree, , therefo, you are a disagreeable person. what is it about this moral certitude that so many of them just can't get off their high horse? >> guest: because it is the emotional appeal that i write about. if you believe your enemy is histories greatest monster,, nothing this is valid. nothing to do is valid and your baby right to hate them, despise them and reject and refuse to listen to them. it's a brilliant marketing in a lot of ways by the left to paint conservatives as these monsters. it's wrong, it's a lie, it's fraud, it's dangerous as we saw on the baseball field last year and hope we don't see a get although i fear we will but it's much easier. you don't have to make a case. if you believe that you are a nazi, the matter what you say, i can just dismiss it. i don't have to counter it. i don't to rebut it. i do not respond to it. the charge of racism again,
going back to that, is throat prevented there's racism in this country, victims of racism in this country but they are being drowned out. they are being hurt because we're not giving it. it's all in this sea of if you disagree with barack obama, you're a racist. it is and that if you have held that position 20th. i suppose bill clinton. was i redneck? suddenly the left found it much easier to just throw around these pejorative terms rather than make a coherent intelligent argument. i don't blame them. most people if they could work from the couch he would it be a much easier life. it's not advancing the ball, not advancing civility and not winning an argument just because you get people to your side he refused to engage. refusing to gauge isn't winning and we think the price. we with $21 trillion in debt for not winning the argument. >> host: talk about low-voltage contributors in the news.
let's move over to low-voltage intellectuals in hollywood. it seems like you understand this, most conservatives don't understand. i was meant to understand the power of hollywood. you understand the cultural power. speak to that. >> guest: andrew breitbart nc-7 that politics is downstream from culture. you see on the screen, you get in music. eventually somebody will try to legislate something about it. it is absolutely true. when i write a column, i went to columns a week for tunnel. when i write about hollywood i occasionally check the comments sort of anything but i do it. there's always people there who say i don't go to the movies. i get rid of cable. i don't watch tv. then you just seated the culture war, congratulations. i'm not saying had to go to the movies every week or watch a tv show but you should be aware of it because it's important. growing up most people are not
watching the news, are not reading the newspapers. their learning about things from pop culture. easy going to netflix and look at the documentary section, if you're cleaning your house one saturday afternoon, if the something that you can kind of ignored and you put on documentary. you going the documentary section of netflix, there is every liberal fever dream in there. food is killing you. genetically modified food. climate change is coming for you. you. the country is hardly racist. capitalism is evil. all these documentaries in air quotes are out there without a disclaimer that these are, these are -- documentaries that it had at a point of view. these are activism films, not documentary. then you the mainstream movies that sort of hammer in these left-wing messages. it's not beating you over the head with it but it's getting into your head. if you don't pay attention to that or 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 quote politicians, certainly much more than they can quote any from the news or in a study. that sticks with you. you need a bigger boat. everybody knows that. it's a way to get into peoples head come into their psyche and believe things that are not necessarily true, and then impact their vote. >> host: you had a statistic fast income in the last how many years, 62 nominees for best picture, but only two of them had grossed more than $100 million. only two of them are really popular. the rest were not. with it about? >> guest: they are about message movies. they are about the liberal feel-good movies. hollywood is its own industry. they can work anybody they want, but to pretend that some of the isn't some message behind this, that the isn't, the oscar so white. the argument was when one year
when they're all nominees were white, the outrage in hollywood. how can this possibly happen? they opened up the voting base to bring more people of color, more women and wanted to change the vote. it was the argument maybe we should make better movies. maybe we can make better scripts. scripts. they control the money. they control what movies are made. nothing against tyler perry, he's made a tenement recycling to be an oscar-winning director or film maker anytime soon because his movies generally are not all that good. they might be entertaining but they are not dramas or even particularly funny. they want to deal with the end result rather than the real problem, much easier to come thank you with the problem that women make movies by minority directors they tend to find only bad ones, comedies, , the stoner movies rather than doing a serious drama. that's changed a little bit but it's ironic to be lectured on these things from hollywood while they the ones doing it. republicans and conservatives
have no sway in hollywood. it's been that are doing it, the #me too movement, harvey weinstein, kevin spacey and not too many people to name. that was them. that was not as. the little trick the left does whatever the left is caught doing something come member went harvey weinstein enola left-wing dominoes fell, the argument was this is a problem for all of us. this is a societal problem. we all have to address this. i didn't play grab aspect when anybody. i didn't do this. we could do this. i can see the farmer in iowa didn't do this. the automaker michigan didn't do this. it was executive in new york and have ellie who did this to donate to the democrats, not -- that's a sort of salve themselves. it was all themselves of guilt say no. it's a societal problem. no, it's not that it's your problem. >> host: this is right on the plate to you. when conservatives complain about the media come and very
little talk about msnbc, talk about cnn. question, who is more powerful, anybody at msnbc, or stephen colbert? >> guest: well, stephen colbert is because it's not very often -- in the cbc goes there's a lot of consumers who watch, hate watch, humor hate watch msnbc. stephen colbert has the cover of 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 series . and criticize doctor, and in what he called what he's did, he said just a comedian picking. you guys are really bad. if you watch these things they intermingle fact and fiction and it's not even joke anymore. those monologues are political speeches punctually with
applause lines, not with punchlines. you don't know that, you are tuned in to watch her favorite movie star or your favorite band interviewed and play, and you're being inundated with subtle half-truths, were truths and flat out lie sometimes. it's much more powerful that way because it's on every day. people watch, a lot more people watch it it's done with humor which, not much, you tend remember jokes much longer than you remember anything else. he's much more effective and dangerous. >> host: over here they say wait a minute, what about johnny carson? all these were conservative republicans. why was it okay for them but not okay for a stephen colbert or jon stewart traffic i'm not saying it's not okay for them. >> host: is the same thing? >> guest: is not the same thing. johnny carson would make fun of
ronald reagan. his number one job was to be funny that night he had to do a ten minute monologue -- monologue which is funny. stephen colbert consensus this is in the news, i want to talk about this. i want to talk with medicare for all. write me some jokes around that. whereas johnny was, let's make fun of everybody. john wayne or jimmy stewart were conservative republicans. there were also want tdy, why see you when had a movie coming out for five minutes at a pop? they didn't have social media. they didn't have viral videos. it's a different world now. johnny carson, , you talk about what he said the night before around the water cooler, and that was it. the next he might talk about what he said the following night. now things live forever online, can you imagine a a dean martin posted it on television? that was all about making you laugh but in a very reverent way tragic it would be rated as a hate crime. >> host: it would be. don rickles would be up on
charges. you just can't have fun anymore. i want to, you spent a lot of time talking about the splc, , e southern poverty law center. there is a quote that you lift from them which to me shocked and i want you to comment on three different levels. the quote is of this, i'm biased incident a speech or expression motivated in whole, part of 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 bias prejudice? >> guest: in the way but not the way they defended. you have read in your beard. if i called your care top that would come you could report that as a biased incident.
>> host: somebody's going to call in about a micro-aggression tragic that the level of it. as we said, we had for the members of the claim in 1920. we're down to a rounding error of the population. there is 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 raising money, raking the money and having the money. they have to continually redefined what the problem is to pretend they are not redefining what the problem is. i bias instant was astute at the election of doctrine. remember the hate crimes going to the roof, and outrage. the jewish community centers were receiving threats. now is a shoe store store in the nevada that it was a former journalist, and black guy in str living in israel. suddenly this story didn't exist anymore. with ever convicted? who knows the media stopped covering it.
it no longer fit the narrative. bias, there are instances of racism but they are not nearly as often or as big and those people are shunned if the races. then have to redefine because nobody's been beaten in street cuts at the race. they have to redefine down to the point that if you say something like i'm an american first, that's a bias, that's a micro-aggression. it's it's not love of insanity but is treated almost unseen level from a statistical a statl standpoint because when you join instance into both statistic is just a number with a bunch of other numbers, could be a beat down, burning across assemblies of somebody's lawn and saying america's greatest country in the world. you throw them into the same bag, the bag weight changes and you just have the weight of the bag. you don't look at the actual meat on the bone. >> host: the word that gets me is incidents in this. there is a suggestion that you
write it down and it goes into book and we we're keeping tabsn you. >> guest: this happens a lot on college campuses in the left has -- they meant something almost something to aspire to. you are a hero. i've been discriminated against because of my sexuality or whatever. people aspire to it. people find new and creative ways to paint themselves as victims and then of course the hero is fighting the victim. you see is with a hate crime hoaxes idq in the book. these social justice warriors who at the don't get at home or don't find a place also antedated through high school, college with his countries races, this country islamophobe. this countries races. you have to go out and stop by to come by conservatives can by republicans and even in different people. they bust out of the classrooms of wood. it's systemic. the country is founded on it. they look a lot and change the
world, fight this stuff but they can't find it. they then spray paint nazis swastikas, they spray paint racial slurs and then report as a look what i found. eventually as so many cases are reported in the book and some occasional hip-hop, you get initial report but there's no follow-up. they do because they want to raise awareness. they want to raise awareness for the issue. they know it is after but they can't find. it doesn't click in the brain that if they can't find it and it is supposedly agoa, maybe it's not a boy. maybe much less than what they've been told and start to question things. the ability to question has been drawn out of these social justice warriors that they don't know how to think for themselves any more. >> host: the poverty law center could be considered by the left as ground zero of the blunt of wisdom. another term, i forget what you
called but it was just very, very funny. i'll see it so in windows but it occurs to me, talking bias incidents, you probably document 200, 300, 400 in this book where there were micro-aggressions if you want to call them against conservative. do you suppose the souther poverty law center is overdressed a single one that you brought up? >> guest: no? there's someone in it for them. they know with a sugar daddies are. it was what half a billion now come some giant pile of money they had a business model works. they are not going to stray from the pit if you're getting just an example of know that you've given to them but if you're getting a lot of money from the building who wants to impeach the president and you know what he wants come you're not going to sally there some of the billion or over here once the opposite of that. will try to appeal to them. you've got your sugar daddy and
you'll stick with it. they had the business model. they don't fight poverty at all. ten when y disco 1% of the mons to law? >> guest: mr. speaker goes to these bogus studies and to maintain a website about if it their pocket and the travel first class. there's a business while behind all this. nobody does this for free. you know that you know we will get up in the morning the mohammad zarif in the cause, the footsoldier does. but the people running the show, people and don't session no matter how noble they tell their cause is, then it's missing a mill. they are doing all right. >> host: in case our views don't know this, because they probably never heard about it in the press, what happened with the hate crime map with the southern poverty law center? what was a consequence? >> guest: the family research center, the manager of the building was shot by a guy who
brought in a bag full of chick-fil-a and again on hell-bent on killing as many people as the fan research and which is a christian organization, believed marriage between a man and woman. the southern poverty law cetner put the hate map together and they listed the research center as hate group in washington, d.c. this guy went in there bought with opposing manager who is able have got shot those able to stop the would-be killer. it was all inspired by the southern poverty law cetner which is on because the left then said a map on sarah palin website the nobody socko nobody went to a a website and saw the crosshairs on gabby giffords congressional district saying we're targeting this. that was blamed by paul krugman at new times. the "new york times" in june as inspiration behind the shooting of gabby giffords and killing six people and wounding of five others out there, which is insane. it's double standards. the southern poverty law cetner was for the most part left out
of stories about the shooting in the family research council. as recently as last year the "new york times" editorial board, they don't even read on paper, cited the crosshairs on sarah palin website as a reason behind the shooting of gabby giffords. they been at issue of painful and embarrassing retraction but you see how once the get out there, it sticks with people. that's why they don't want the fact that the burning pro is one who shot and republicans at the baseball field, inspired by progressive politics. they don't want that the shooter at the penn research center was by the southern poverty law cetner if they do want that out the because they know if they get out it will stick. when the "new york times" editorial board is not some random report or somebody posting something on twitter, and editorial cite something that a newspaper had debunked in the same issue by the way, you
realize that, what we are up against her once something gets into the consciousness of the public, it's tough to get it out. >> host: to me going back to dylan roof and that horrific guy who commit the murders, the racist murders, he wasn't supported or motivated by an organization. this guy was. i'm not suggesting they said to do it but he was following the dictates of a a heat map and taking it to a horrible -- tragedy goes back to if you believe adolf hitler runs also 600 and think have, john general obligation? if you believe southern poverty law cetner is a very diplomatic in in the way they label these groups, it's hate, it's not that are bad, they feel this way on this issue, there is some nuance, it is you either good for your bad. if you believe you are good you have to be against bad. so you label the family research council, this new group that is
harming people, even though all they're is holding opinions really, if you are off in the head you can see how someone can say i more obligation to act. we have to step up hate. we're told consecrated stamp out hate. you try and do it. the southern poverty law cetner acts like a dealer, a black check you in vegas and we didn't intend to do with it. immediate help them sneak out the back door. they ignore the connection, ignore the fact he had it printed out version of the map on it. he said that's how we found out about this group and note that when you were was the very map, the hate math which was basic like a map to the stars homes where people who are not worthy of existing in this country according to the political left. the media like to do that. >> host: and again you're not suggesting as i'm not suggesting that the southern poverty law cetner said go shoot somebody unconscious manipulation can.
isn't that exactly what the left does? if somebody shoot somebody will say the nra was behind it and a blend nra. >> guest: is amazing when that issue out in colorado at the batman movie, brian ross that abc news found a similar name, he was allowed resign, he found a a name on tea party groups website. we don't know if it's in that it probably is. the bombing up in the boston happened on patriots' day. your organization has documented all -- people so we don't know what the motivation was but it is patriots' day, tax day so you know, those right-wingers hate government so this is probably then. it turns out it wasn't. it was terrorism. they jumped to the original conclusion and then cut for groups like the media research center. otherwise, nobody would hold them accountable because the quickly move on. they don't acknowledge it will happen. when to do an internal
investigation like when the george zimmerman 911 call was edited by nbc news to make it sound like he was racist, sync is a blackout document, they took it out of context, crop quote in half and spice back together. that's not by accident. that's that's not an accident he edit button. it was deliberate. we don't know who do that but we're told they were disciplined somehow. we don't know who, we don't if they're fired or they're still on the job. it's a different set of standards. >> host: do you see this now emerging with social media, facebook and twitter, shenanigans going on? >> guest: we see occasion the new times comes out and says to our reporters we have new social media policy don't give your opinion. everyone we will not get as many retreats, not as much follows, not as much traffic from this so they loosen the reins, never announced their loosening the reins but it's dangerous in that
journalists can we all know they have opinions. i grew up with tom brokaw and dan rather. i knew whither coming from but it were not so blatant about it. now there's no ambiguity about it. they are out there 280 characters at a at a time telling the world, telling conservatives, telling the president to get bent on a regular basis. >> host: they are thinking tried as a right in the book, one of the things where journalism went off the rails, i wasn't on bikes i don't know what it was like before, that with watergate seems to be really where it went off the rails. journalists became a celebrity with watergate. woodward and bernstein became fabulously wealthy. they were portrayed by robert redford in woodward case and a very good at generosity carl bernstein was portrayed by dustin hoffman. they were invited to parties. they were making deals, they make millions and journalists of incoming ones want to be like
them. then they begin activist. the editors at the time tried to pump the brakes on every facet of our job. we report the story. we go with the facts. those people who want to make the difference are not editors and have whole bunch of social justice wears come in and they don't want to pump the brakes. the editors don't want to pump the brakes. the social justice words don't want to pump the brakes. we are in for world of hurt when they become the editors because nov no holds barred. it will just be press releases being slapped under some of my lung. it's going to get that bad. i feel bad for the future. my daughter is one years old. she will have to be skeptical of everything she reads in chicago to go get multiple sources on the same story and try and cobbled together the truth from all of those sources. >> host: so why does the left hate donald trump? >> guest: because he's not them. >> host: we only have ten minutes left. >> guest: there is no -- not
just immediate. but everyone on the left hates this man. why? >> guest: for the last 20 years they loved the men. they took us money. they invited him to their party. he went to paris where he went to their party. "morning joe," 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, 80% from his number 20% in me. i butchered that but you get the idea. it is my 99.9% friend is my .1% enemy. there is no middle ground. you are either fully on board or your full it out. they can't handle the fact that hillary clinton lost. as lucy with the russian investigation there three some sort of nefarious external source as to why she lost. it can be that after 30 years of knowing her the american people said no, i'm not interested.
it has to be something else. they can't accept that i just didn't sell. they can't accept those large percentage of this country who likes having border integrity, the welcoming immigrants but is not an open door. if you want to come in my house, knock on the door. don't climb in my window. the leftist 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. you can see now you are the victim and you're the victim here and you can pick people against each other. that's the left strategy. donald trump doesn't care about any of that. donald trump, if you notice about donald trump's attacks, his tweets, his comments on the podium come his comments about whatever, he never just pick someone at random and insist this journalist is this that or the other thinking of this politician is this, that or the
other thing. he's always hitting back. he hits backorder but i nursing him pick a fight. i've seen finish fights and i do go read his tweets sometimes and go he probably shouldn't set that way. but he never just randomly, it's a tuesday, i'm going to write about how rosie o'donnell is a normal person just send out to the worker it's always responding. the left hates because he's better at it and they are. they tried to get in and they will certainly win an election in manhattan. to win an election washington d.c. and san francisco and los angeles. it's the rest of the country that did this. donald trump, even though he's from new york and he is a built-in or, if that i got wisconsin who gets up in the morning and makes widgets can identify with. part of it is somebody is under attack and hits back and he plays to win. >> host: the media are constantly attacking trump. not to become everybody on the
left is constantly attacking trump for not being a truth teller. and for line. where would they, come you talk about this in your book, with the fact checkers with politifact, with the president who said if you -- try to if you like your plane you can keep your plan. what's amazing that politifact is a fact check that four times. >> three times, what ended up what he was a candidate. there was no legislation to nol what's of the declared to be true. nothing to measure it against but they knew it to be true. i think the fact checked it two more times through the first few years of his presence and with varying degrees of truth. it became a look at clear that he wasn't going to be the case but found a way to work around that and the declared truth it wasn't only companies on after 2012, it was 2013 that it was declared the light of you. i just after they been told dozens of times. when no longer was barack obama
going to face the voters, there was no way to hold them accountable for that. they finally declared it lie of the year. but the tortured logic out they had declared it to three times, they didn't announce that the declared truth retires. they just that this is the light of your because 5 million people have lost their health insurance. it's not, if you control the unit of measure can you always can be the tallest, always the sports coupons can be the best looking, the funnies, the doesn't matter. that's what he's fact checkers do. they decide what to check how to check it. during the third debate nbc news ran live checks on twitter. fact checkers were the worst thing to happen. there were asked fact checks during the last week or all against the trumpet everything visit the fact checked the declared ally. they didn't run one single fact check against hillary clinton which gives impression everything she said was absolute truth. one of the things that i checked
and declared ally from donald trump was when he said that hillary clinton had acid wash her server. she use the program bleachbit, referring to as ass washed his hillary clinton didn't physically different server into a vat of hypotensive. that was declared ally. even the packaging a set you did use bleachbit but not acid. no corrosive chemical. you have to something off in your brain to be watching a debate and nitpick to the level, and it is of this will dislike of a person saying that you ready to stick on everything. i've had girlfriends where, when it's your somebody at anymore. you begin to find things to nitpick. that's exactly what the media o donald trump. >> host: something that is not working well is your affection for bill nye the science guy. what is a that all about traffic
i have nothing against him personally but he is not a science guy. he has an engineering degree who tried to do standup comedy, failed and was ultimately cast on the kids pbs show in the northeast that became bill nye the science guy. it's great. it was a great show. he showed you how to do experiments and you learned things. but because he chose the liberal line he was imbued by the media that if there's a storm, an issue of climate change, let's bring in bill nye to talk about. he has a book and he's pontificating about how we're all killing the planet and every rainstorm and slightly lower is because of climate change. he has no idea. he doesn't have a science background. if you want to build a bridge from call bill nye. the same goes for neil degrasse tyson. brilliant guy, astrophysicist, no doubt he is brilliant but deep space is the antithesis of
climate. it's nothing. it is a void. if you want to know what's going on in pluto you call neil degrasse tyson. if you want to know what cause the footages and there's neil degrasse tyson on television. it's the ability of television to get somebody expertise that the have not earned. if you though the science guy and you think cytolytic or he t know what he's talking about that if you look into his past he doesn't. he probably knows more about science that i do something because he spent 20 20 is doing experience on tv. but forgive if i don't want to cede control the entire u.s. economy to a guy who ran an article in the nation magazine about how the suv is killing us all. >> host: i find it fascinating that one of the great intellectual leaders for the left today is beyoncé. or leonardo dicaprio. i'm sure he cares up mother
earth but he's not expert on these things. isn't remarkable they put these people forward? >> guest: leonardo dicaprio turns out document after document. about climate change. meanwhile, he loads of his party bus with victoria secret model nothing about them as root the book the world would be better off more both but you can't claim to be an environmentalist tasha -- one thing about the left is they will not live the way they seek to impose on others unless and until they posted on others and then only maybe. out corliss basically in a hollowed out shopping mall that he keeps probably 60 degrees in the summer but he will tell you that you to turn a fan on and walk the red shirt was home because it's good for the planet. it's hypocrisy. i have a problem with anybody telling, having their say that when they don't do it themselves that's what drives me nuts.
but leonardo dicaprio and beyoncé of the world have carbon footprint of the small country. nothing against it. i think it's great to be that successful, within to tell somebody else that they can't do something. >> host: you know, that's extraordinary. we'll have a couple of minutes left, but hollywood preaches tolerance day and night. get it appears to me it's the most intolerant industry in america today. am i right or wrong? >> guest: you are absolutely right. you can know anything as long as it's the one have everybody. you are right out of town. james woods, the great actor, oscar nominee think the killing fields, his agent dropped because he didn't want to work with the conservative anymore. james woods was a member of mensa, a smart guy, could be bit competitive on social media but so what. his agent to sit i can't work with you because of your politics. roseanne tweeted something
incredibly stupid and lost her job, lost her show, lost by which everything. she's pretty much done. not that she shouldn't have been scorned and ridiculed and forced to apologize, but one of the business completely while james gunn, the director of the guardians of the galaxy movies, made a bunch of pedophile jokes on social media ten years ago, was fired and the cast came together just recently and wrote a letter to disease to do saying he should be rehired, is a good man, this was a long time ago. forgive and forget and move on. if it were not for double standards liberals would have no stint 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 its company because there is a move by the left now, help james gunn and we did stop going to peoples tweets from tinges cooking that
left pioneered this to try and ruin conservatives. now that finally after ten or 20 years of saying we're not going to play this game can now we're going to play this game. will hold you to your own standards, and the left hates it. i just come like a sit i just want people to be treated come hell to the same standards. i don't care necessary what the standards are as long as either the same and we don't get that. >> host: your book is "outrage, inc." but i love the title, "outrage, inc.." it is a business. it's been a delight talking to this hour. and i hope it's a monumental do so because it's great try to appreciate it. >> host: thank you so much. >> if you want to get other programs online silva go to our website at booktv.org.
type after words and all previous after words 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 fence in washington, d.c. and around the country. .. this will by on become tv in a few weeks. so for the q & a section if you could wait nil get to you with the mic so people can hear you en