tv In Depth Kathleen Hall Jamieson CSPAN May 5, 2019 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
your most recent book is called cyber wars how they helped elect a president. was there enough interference to change to votes of 78,000 people. >> after the muller report used the word sweeping and systematic which have a way to digest the conclusion there was a lot of it out there. when people hear that it wasn't only troll activity not just us on the internet. the effect was clearer. it was the hackers that stole contacts and leaked it back in. not on their own that was a lot.
it was a cross platform and it's still there. they shut it down in one place. you have to keep worries about this. not just $100,000 was spent by the russian groups. >> they didn't buy a lot of advertising. that doesn't mean they didn't have a lot of reach. that doesn't mean they read everything. they could have had an impact.
that's talking about one set of platforms. >> there was a study saying there was 340 million shares of the information. >> that we know of. one of the questions because we continue to find content and the revelation of it being there. there was more we haven't found yet. >> in your book since the platform of fear forms reached the customers it's unsurprising
amateurs target audiences. i studied politics for a long time. we would gather up the people that would produce the campaign and key individuals we talked to were the time buyers. the people that figured out to get the add to the desired audience. it took us hours and hours talking with these people to figure out what had gotten where and how it was done. it was an art form. now our 13-year-old grandson could go on facebook and figure out how to target a message. the system is so well-done and we have gathered so much information about how to reach different parts of the consuming audience that the ways in which they can reach us are mar
controtargeting. they can reach sub units of subbinunites of the voting. you can do it from st. peters book. >> your first book 1984 packaging the presidency. were you able to target back in 1984. was that spaghetti on the wall? >> that book covers the televised era. this is the days and which it was carried in polls and marched through parades. the book concentrates on 19 the system permitted you they try to
target something. it was on one television outlet. it wasn't linked up systematically. we were finding basically a mass campaign to a mass audience by blocked geographic regions. by the time we got to the 80s. you can find subsections by geographic targets. we have seen mr. roberts and more sophisticated targeting. mis -- messages marked the path. what it gave us was the ability to move images rapidly. when they move rapidly and with music you can't control they just evoke them. you can't be as analytic than
when you saw the peace of print in the 17 hundreds. you had to stop and process it as you read it. capacity to use our sub september ability has increased as the media has changed and evolved. social media adds to that. >>reporter: back to 2016 what don't we know or can't we know? >> the book caused my pu publisr anxiety. it has three titles. the can't is about trying to recover what happened in the past. if we don't have the scholarly materialmaterials gathered in re you won't recover things about the impact of messaging. after it's over we reremember the election.
if we didn't survey the right people during the election you can't figure out what was happening. that's a big can't know. we also don't know whether they organic content. that's the viral stuff and nod the paid stuff. wisconsin, michigan, and pennsylvania. there was enough ecross an electorate. we know the way they were suppose to mobilize and demobilize. the platforms know that. i'm hoping the intelligence committee knows that too. i hope we learn it. the reason we know it is twitter contacted people who gotten troll content and let them know they got control. they knew we were there. you won't be exact. there are problems tied into individual computers.
>> some of those troll groups you list hilary for prison, blacks against hilary. trump train. resign now for comby. >> the way in which the content started the discord. as a result disadvantages a party. if a country is feeling uneased you bounce the incumbent party out of power. the way they sought out audiences. they cop opted the audiences. you have a sight trying to attract the black lives matter constituency. it gapes more power.
that's impersonation. also those in the african-american people more artist. they did be the know they were dealing with russians when they did that. there is 10 sunda 10 under scorn it. it god higher traffic. folksare sitting in st. petersberpetersburg asking whatd there. in the case of the blackvist site it was to depresses the vote. there wasn't a difference between hillary clinton and donald trump. hillary clinton was vulnerable to this. the super predator. the increase of black incarceration under bill clinton's administration. you have to have a theory about
persuasion that's county intuitive. when you change the amount of messaging you have on one side you can disadvantage or advantage a candidate. once a message is there it has it's effect. the message has some effect. the amount of messaging has an effect too. if you increase the amount of messaging it's black incarceration you decrease the likelihood that constituency would vote for that candidate. >> did you debate on using the term cyber war? >> yes, if i would have known more about what the national security commission had been saying i would have thought about it a second or third turn.
they are largely technical largely outside my expertise. i used it not in any of those senses but to try to get rid of the language that was downplaying the threat. if you go back and read the news coverage you can find in 2016 you see the verbiage meddle or interfere. they meddled or interfered. the strong word is intervened the scope and potential impact and threat to the structure i don't think should be called meddle integer or intervene. i wanted to ramp up the language to increase our preparedness. the word cyber war and calling it an attack is a way to make them view this serious. i would justify it on rhetorical
grounds and not national security grounds. when you attack the elections that's an attack on national sovernt history. one of the first things they try to do is take-over the communication system. the russians didn't take-over our communication system but some important way they did change it. in those senses i can really defend cyber war. i would like to put it in quotes so that it's not literally meaning cyber war in the way the national security community means that term. >> back to the two major party nominees increased our collective venerability to
russian influences. >> had hillary clinton released the speeches and the press had a field day with them. we would have vetted them during the primaries. when segments were released they wouldn't have been used on the press that was so busy trying to handle all of the hacked content they didn't look carefully to see those hacked segments didn't say what they thought they said or bernie sanders feared. i'll do something different with wall street. hillary clinton could have presented the problem those hacked segments caused her had any just disclosed the context.
she was a wary candidate. that caused a problem for her. donald trump, let's think about that statement that condate trump made. russia, if you are listening. the hypothetical should go like this. image that john mccain or mitt romney the prior nominees had been confronted with the came situation. they would have not used the content. they would have suggested strongly our government better get on this and find out what's going on and shut it down. donald trump was creating an environment were there was approval of the hacked content being disseminated into the content. there was a call for more to be found. >> is there a role the obama administration did or didn't play.
>> yes, we know that from journalist. there was a large plan laid out for the obama administration that involved strong attacks on russia on the hacked activity. they weren't able to issue a strong public statement. instead, in the form of president obama went to putin to say stay out of our electoral system. what would have happened had they put the sanctions in place in october that they put in place in september. would they have been more aware but more importantly was there a
task that was heard by the russians heard by the proposed focus on the electoral systems. we are not as worried about this. it's a good question and would it have changed the electoral dynamics. >> back to cyber wars. number three. evidence of tampering with voting machines or vote tallies and no credible proof i believe that's the case. this is what is difficult about the argument people here it argument saying the trolls and hackers made a difference.
they were embedded by the press he is the president because we voted him in. we trust our national security committee had the muller investigation one county in florida was asked. that's from the muller report. we should raise vigilence around the country. we are working to try to ensure that doesn't happen again. i take the national security community at it's word votes were not changed. donald trump is the elected president of the united states. the fact the legitimacy has been
raised by all of the russian interventions meaning putin won by verby very virtue if it was l threat or not. the muller investigation tries to find out what did the russians do or not do. if we don't do everything we can because the president is worried about legitimacy than president putin score one. he got into the heads and our system. >> how does cyber wore fit into your body of work? >> i have always been interested in presidential rhetoric and the ways to which communication functions. in an earlier book i liked at how they produce effect. these are not books widely read
by the public. one book looked at the 2002 election. it's called the foundations of party politics. a very poor title by the way. the message imbalances in the 2002 election. it's advertising and news can explain why one candidate won the popular vote and the other won the electoral college. you hear this in the beginning of the argument. what we were able to show because we were in the field every single day with what is called a rolling cross sectional survey. a random sample everyday. we were able to show when the dui charge against george w. bush came to the forfront and and stepped out of the news. network news had a major impact at this point.
al gore hammered the network news unrebutted by george bush that he would short change the social security strain. he would take some out to let you invest and there wouldn't be as much there. he gained traction with that with the national audience. we can show it day-to-day and the change. over on the battleground he hadn't saved his money. george with bush was able in the battleground to come back and out spend al gore by saying you don't have to worry. everything will be fine. in the battleground states we saw the advertising difference. what did we see? news advantage gore. popular vote. out of that we argued message
change in amount. this is on the margin hence the relevance of that book we are in the field everyday with the rolling cross section. mccain as obama out spends mccain we could look at the messages in the message stream of the democrats. it's belief in the claims advance by candidate obama. what is that a message imbalance lance creates an effect. the message imbalances matter. they called and asked if i would do an op ed about disclosing the
ad. i hadn't paid any attention to that the reason i called is because they were familiar with the two in the earlier book. i looked at the material disclosed and to my surprised larger amounts of messaging we thought were there. that's the first time the figure came out and message imbalance lances are possible here. there is a possibility there was enough to make an impact. the relevance of the earl i letter books came in the form of an op ed someone asked many eato write that lead me to say that's a book line for argument. >> kathleen hall, what did
packaging the presidency that came out in 1984 do to your career? >> i was down the street from you. c-span was there. it was the very beginning days of c spai c-span in odd places. they were putting themselves together. i went from a college professor that loved her classes. to a college professor that loved her classes and getting calls from reporters that wanted to know about advertising. so, it's my national visibility in ways that were problematic. when you are a young professor you concentrate on your research and not answering questions from reporters. it taught me something important. i learned more from reporter questions often then from studying the content they produce. it caught me important things about what is on their mind and
helped me look differently at the kinds of things i study. >> shortly after you went to the university of pennsylvania. >> first i went to the university of texas for a few years they don't associate me with focus groups. sometimes she does experiments. we were running focus groups and trying to figure out when they see news and advertising what are they doing with it. before we put the survey questions with it it would be a good idea to listen carefully to voters. my fe students and i were talkig about focus groups.
in one focus group we have what have you seen that's interesting. the narrative was coming forward and people were starting to talk to us about it. we knew there was an ad about it. people were talking about it that were in states that hadn't experienced the ads. they were thinking they had heard about an ad but actually they heard news. in some cases they were telling us they were sure they heard news. they heard the ad. we started to hypothesize they don't hold the origin of messages in place as they make sense of the electoral eenvironment. we also talk about it. i was leading the group. we spoke to a group and people started talking about a peace of news and they were talking about the revolving door ferlo program. michael went into the tank and opposed his only defense
systems. question are listening to this and trying to figure out what is going on. we asked what new shows they had watched. some of them had been watching richard. that was on abc. some of those positions described positions he didn't hold. they were processing back to us not having heard his corrections. they were hearing the ad through the news. that lead to our research. when you contract attack an ad on the screen. turn it to an angle. put-up on the screen it's an ad. you are the news outlet and put the corrections up in print. disrupt it. it's evoketive.
we created experiments in which we took richard's voice and created the adverse and grammer. we did experiments and now people heard the corrections. that laid us to go to the networks that said box them and put the corruptions up. make sure your verbal corrections are in print. you will actually reinforce the meaning of the ad instead of your correction. 2003 i started to fact check. >> that was telling u.t. you were doing the focus group. >> that lead to the experience. university of pennsylvania i created fact check.org. >> we'll get to factbe check.org in a while. what has been your position at the university of pennsylvania. you have had several. >> i have.
>> you were dean, director, professor. >> i was at the school for communication. i was dean for 14 years. you get periods. you get seven years and they renew you for five. they asked me to stay on for two more years. during that time walter endowed the policy center. my understanding if i did a good job i would direct to policy center. he thought i did a good job and direct the policy center. >> when did you first -- first of all who was walter? >> he was the person that made tv guide tv guide. >> he did the racing forum. >> yes, he did the racing forum before that.
he owned several television stations that begame part of the abc network. he was a media entrepreneur. >> also a good friend ophryon fold reagans. >> he was richard nixon's ambassador. if you go back and ask when would you have seen this magnificent place to public trust. you will see the reagan kitchen cabinet having new years eve there every year and the reporter following the president to the sight. . . .
>> guest: but not jimmy carter. have all spent at least -- >> host: and the obamas went there relatively regularly. >> guest: oh, the -- president obama, this is now after the estate passed into trust, after walter died. president obama had the g8 summit at the estate because it's available for presidents of the united states, for secretaries of state to conduct international diplomacy. and one of the goals in turning the estate over for use of the president, secretaries of state, etc., was to provide a way to signal our alliance with those in the pacific rim so that people from that part of the world wouldn't have to come all the a way to washington, and the president could go part way. so the xi summit, which is important in establishing u.s. relations to china at that point, took place, as did the
the asean summit. >> host: how did you meet him? >> guest: i was at the university of texas, very happy at the university of texas, and i got a call from ambassador annenberg. i did not actually believe it was the ambassador, but my staff said he wants to speak with you. i knew him as a major republican donor, as a person who had -- i read tv guide all through my child, "seventeen" magazine as well. so i thought it was a joke, someone pretending to be walter annenberg. and faculty had approached me about the deanship, and i said i wasn't interested. and he asked me why i didn't want to be the dean of his school. [laughter] >> host: did you consider him to be a friend? >> guest: i considered him to be a mentor. i add mire him greatly. our age and status difference,
it would have been odd to think of him as a friend although i was extraordinarily fond of both him and his wife, wonderful people who have done an enormous amount offed good for the nation, particularly in the culture and the arts. they helped us find our civics work. anybody who'd like to see great documentaries about the importance of the constitution, go to annenberg classroom where they're available at no cost. he provided the endowments that made the annenberg schools at the two universities secure, and he also made my policies -- i say it's my policy center, it's actually the university's policy center. >> host: kathleen hall jamieson, you dedicate your 1999 book to walter annenberg, what's the double bind? >> guest: the double p bind is a concept that was developed by gregory batheson that says you can put people in a situation in
which there is no good choice. you make one choice, you're penalized, the opposite choice you're penalized, and those are your only choices. women are expected to be competent and caring, but if they move to make the argument for competence, they're overstepping gender bounds and, as a result, inappropriate for their gender, they're too aggressive, they're bitchy, etc. if they're too caring, they can't be competent. and so it's a double bind. and women who move into leadership positions surmount this, because the book is really about how you surmount it by establishing that those two things are not inmat bl. they are compatible, and then putting in place the credentials to publish that compatibility. but we -- to establish that compatibility. we see these traps still, less so but still. early in the history of efforts to achieve women's rights, there's a bind that i call uterus brain. you're expected to use your uterus or your brain, but you
couldn't use both. so the assumption was that women's primary role was childbearing, and if they engaged in intellectual activities, they would shortchange that function. and there was an argument literally made at one point that their uteruses would dry up if they tried to become public figures. so the uterus brain bind was ultimately overcome by some very smart women scientists. remember, early in the 1900s, you had women's colleges emerging, and there was one study done by one that i really admire. she basically said, okay, you're trying to say that our brains and uteruses can't work simultaneously. so she took women who were menstruating and women who weren't, women who were pregnant, and women who weren't, and she used men as a comparison. no difference in the ability to calculate complex numbers in any of those states, thereby establishing that the reproductive capacity was not interfering with the brain capacity in women, and men were
a nice control. they did perfectly well. >> host: was that as revelatory as galileo's -- [laughter] we go around the sun? >> guest: well, it was at a point which people were arguing that women shouldn't move into advanced education. and if they did, that something fundamental about them would be destroyed. so stereotypes underlying all of this are highly problematic. and i'm reading a wonderful book right now by blight about frederick douglass -- >> host: david blight. just won the pulitzer -- >> guest: and it's a fabulous book. but there's a little section in there about a woman abolitionist, i think her name is abby kelly, i may be getting that wrong, and about the constraints placed on her as she tried to move into public speaking. i knew about these kinds of things historically because women who moved into the public domain were called whores and prostitutes, and they were considered to be women of ill
repute. but to find in the middle of this book this little illustration that she, too, had to face these things was one of those small reminders of how far we actually are come. >> host: but what does susan felutti and a flight to hawaii have to do with beyond the double bind? the author. >> guest: she wrote a book called backlash. friends of mine were reading it, loving it. i got a copy as a gift for christmas. and we were on a plane with my family, my kids and my husband, going to see my sister in hawaii for the winter recess for the christmas holidays, and i started to read a book i thought i was going to love. so you know those moments in which you're a little phobic about flying, which i am -- sometimes more so, sometimes less to -- and the book is going to get me away there from my realization that it is an unnatural act to be up in the air with something that large going through turbulence. i got about two chapters in and realized that i was disagreeing
fundamentally with the premise of the book. i didn't think historically it was accurate to say women move if forward and are then pushed back. i thought it was accurate to say that women confront challenges as they move forward, but they find ways to you are mount them -- surmount them. they ultimately hold their ground and continue to move forward. and i found some sections in the book that i simply felt were wrong. not just the interpretation, but the order in which supreme court cases were discussed was making an argument that if you got them in the right order, you wouldn't be able to make. so i'm on a plane, i don't have any research materials, there's no online access at this point to anything. so i waited until the plane was steady, got up, opened up the compartment, got out my case, pulled out a notebook and sat down with my notebook and started to write a reputation to the book, that became beyond the double bind. >> host: in this book, chapter two -- quoting breathty
friedan -- deathty friedan. -- betty friedan. covering hillary clinton is a massive rorschach test of the women in our society. you wrote that in 1995, it's now 2019. does it hold true? >> guest: yes, it does. and i was talking at that point, there's some irony, her statement about cookies and tea. i could have -- stay at home with cookies and tea. >> host: right. >> guest: and the fact that reporters then dropped off two important pieces of information, that she was talking about being a professional before she had had chelsea in the environment in which she thought it was possible to perform that function well and didn't think she needed to be a person who would be serving cookies and tea. by virtue of the press and bill clinton's political opponents, reducing that to what was cast as an attack on stay at home motherhood, which it was not,
the taking out of context disadvantaged hillary clinton in a way that was consistent with the uterus/brain bind. she actually wasn't in context of that statement. she talks about entering the profession before her husband came into professional life, etc. so in that environment, i thought what was happening with hillary clinton was illustrating something important about how women are attacked when they overstep what the culture says are appropriate bounds. >> host: kathleen hall jamieson is our guest on booktv's "in depth," and we invite your participation as well. numbers are on the screen. 202 is the area code. 748-8200 if you live in the east and central time zones. 748-8201 in the mountain and pacific time zones. now, if you can't get through on the phone lines or would prefer to make a comment via social media, we're going to scroll through those as well. facebook, instagram, twitter and
e-mail. just remember it's booktv is our --@booktv is our handle. here is an annotated list of some of dr. jamieson's books. beginning in 1984, packaging the presidency. eloquent in an electronic age came out in '88. dirty politics: deception, distraction and democracy, 992. o.k., before we go any further, i'm seeing a theme here. [laughter] presidential election years. >> guest: yes. >> host: is that on purpose? >> guest: it is. >> host: all right. onthe double bind, which we just mentioned. women in leadership was 1995. spiral of cynicism with joseph cappella came out in 997, is and -- 1997 and he is -- >> guest: my colleague at the annenberg school, university of pennsylvania. >> host: everything you think you know about politics and why you're wrong, 2000. the press effect, 2003. unspun with brooks jackson came out in '07. echo chamber about the conservative media, rush
limbaugh and the conservative media -- >> guest: also with joe cappella. >> host: it came out in '08. again, a presidential election year. the obama victory came out in 2010, and cyber war, which we're talking about now, came out in 2018. go ahead and dial in, and we will begin taking those calls in just a few minutes. kathleen hall jamieson, from "unspun," you write: spin is a polite word for deception. >> guest: and i wrote that a long time ago. when brooks and i wrote the book, we had already founded fact check.org. fact check.org was founded in 2003 out of the realization that increasingly when someone would attack and and someone else would counterattack, the press would not adjudicate the difference. and sometimes they were both accurate, they were just selectively using facts on each side. and what readers needed was a context. sometimes they were both inaccurate, and you would default when you heard it to
whatever your own side was. you would assume that your side was correct when, in fact, your side budget. and as a result, even though you wouldn't change your ideology and change your vote if you knew it was correct, it was still useful to know something was accurate or not because it would better forecast governorren nance. my concern was -- governance. my concern was journalists were being pressed to do more, and does this sound familiar? it's just accelerated. didn't have the time and the wherewithal to look carefully at those kinds of exchanges. we wrote the book after we founded fact check because we thought there were ways that you could look at the spinning process, this process not necessarily of saying, you know, that black is white or white is black but, rather, saying this is selective, this is out of context. there were ways to identify it systematically if you were in the public and that we might be able to systemize that enough so people would be less vulnerable.
still accurate in a world in which you've got social media, now we're more likely to be in like-minded communities where we're less likely to have access to opposing views and less likely to hear from those who challenge our assumptions. >> host: a couple of the topics you've taken on recently include cuts to special olympics and medicaid for all, and you look at those, and this is all on factcheck.org. but your last comment, do we get better information today than we did 40 years ago, political information? >> guest: we could because there's better information out this. there's more information out there. >> host: but it's more sophisticated. >> guest: if you had to say i'm now going to search out, because i'm concerned about -- the pick any issue -- i now have access online to every federal report, to every scholarly report. if i've got access to a library, i can break through the pay walls in order to read primary
documents. when candidates put up policy positions, i can find them, you know, wearing my bath are robe in the middle of the -- bathrobe in the middle of the night. think back to the 1980s. i had to go to a library and conduct a search, if i couldn't find it, i had to make a phone call or write a letter and try to get access. we can find more accurate information more quickly than ever before. we're more likely not to do that because we're more enclaved in like-minded communities where we're being exposed to things that reinforce what we already believe, and we are, as a result, less disposed to go out and find things that may be able to add 1kwr50ud candidate what we believe and not believe in some way. >> host: well, let's go back to 1984 and packaging the presidency, major party candidate until 1988. this is a second edition. assumed that outright lying in an ad would create an outcry from the press, a devastating counterassault from the other side and a backlash from an
incensed electorate. that assumption no longer governs. does that statement hold up? >> guest: yes. and because we can now micro-target, it's harder for the press to find deceptions and to adjudicate them. we saw this in 2008 when the obama campaign deceived a subsection of voters on radio about john mccain's stand on s.t.e.m. cell research. stem cell research. it took us weeks before we were able to uncover the fact that that was actually out there. it was blatantly saying he stood for something he did not stand for. john mccain had taken on a president of his own party over stem cell research, so getting his position wrong on that was potentially consequential. what we saw in that kind of an environment was the ability to micro-target to reach audiences made it harder for the factchecks.org and the journalists to expose its deceptiveness. and as a result, if you voting
against john mccain based on misinformation, you might actually have changed your vote. >> host: let's take some calls before we go any further here. >> guest: sure. of. >> host: leo in bronx, at the bronx, please go ahead. >> caller: hi, how you doing? my question is regarding senator elizabeth warren who has stated that she thinks that companies like facebook should be is sued to antitrust. i have a thought. my thought is that in 2005, 2006 the federal trade commission made facebook sign a consent decree that if they violated other people's privacy, they'd be fined $40,000. as a result of cambridge analytica, they violated the privacy of 50 million people. so 50 million times 40,000
equals $2 trillion. in essence, the federal trade commission has the power to drive facebook out of business. >> host: all right, leo, let's -- you know what? i think i see where you're going, and let's let kathleen hall jamieson riff on this a little bit. we've talked a little bit about social media but not in the extent that leo was talking. >> guest: and you're in a domain in which i just don't have the expertise to comment intelligently. the regulatory structures are, i think, facing challenges in grappling with new media because -- and they're not so new anymore. the platforms as media, because our regulatory structures weren't set up to deal with private enterprises that have this kind of capacity. but the legal community is going to have to sort out the technicalities. there are fine scholars who study the regulatory process, and i just do not know enough about it to say anything that would be helpful. >> host: next call is dave in new york city. hi, dave.
>> caller: hi. i would like to, first, agree with the last caller. i guess here in new york city, i'm in manhattan the, he's in the bronx, but i believe they should be broken up or fined out of business, facebook. i think it's the most dangerous, you know, media -- i'm a luddite. imagine how i feel now, you know? i've seen the whole veneer of democracy destroyed, and facebook, i think, is the most pernicious -- zuckerberg and the whole thing, it's just a real mess. >> host: dave, do you use any social media today? >> caller: no. i finally got a computer. it's wonderful as a tool. it didn't -- i was afraid of it, that i wouldn't use it as a tool. meanwhile, it's just taken over, destroyed our politics, destroyed our social fabric. it's been used as a malevolent tool to such a great degree. now, i wanted to say, the reason i called really is that four times during the first now,
what, we're 49 minutes into the show, i've been watching, the show is interrupted on spectrum. i'm in manhattan. right in the beginning when you were talking about there must be keywords or something, i thought it was spectrum. i had to turn off the tv to get back on. is so four times -- i believe the russians have hacked you. >> host: i don't think that's correct, but thanks for pointing that out. the right folks here at c-span are listening about spectrum and your experience, so thanks for pointing that out. but let's go to facebook as a pernicious invader of our political system and our world. >> guest: there are many positive things about the platforms. they have made forms of connection possible that let people organize on social causes that they care about. they've increased the likelihood that someone like ocasio-cortez can reach constituencies in different kinds of ways. and they've also increased the
likelihood that within the communities that we care about, we can share things quickly that we want other people to read and other people to see. so to the extent that we're custodians of our own social media environment, there are ways for us to use them to empower ourselves and others. there are downsides. the privacy trade-offs in the process are very real. and, you know, to the extent that you're not paying for something, you're probably the product being sold is axiommatically an interesting statement. so the question i think we need to ask as we look at these platforms is how to increase the likelihood that in the tings -- the things they do well can be increased and how do we increase -- how do they increase the likelihood that those things that are pernicious can be minimized. of the platforms are trying to minimize the likelihood that we have a repeat of 2016, and i applaud some of the things that they have done. for example, it's very difficult now to buy advertising if you're a foreign power. it was really easy e in 2016.
now if you want to buy advertising, you have to verify that you've got a number, a social security number, a business number that ties you to the united states and a geographical address inside the united states because there's a process of sending that information back and forth that means you have to be able to get it in real space, geographically, and then send it back. now, the russians, the iranians, the chinese could still put someone inside the united states to do that, but it's going to be a lot harder for them to do. on youtube we now see a disclaimer on content that is coming from foreign governments, from governments in general, i should say. so, for example, when you see rrt in your hotel room or cable system and you don't know that's "russia today" and that that is a kremlin outlet, in effect, required to register under the foreign agents registration act in the united states because of its intervention in 2016, well, now you've got a clue because now on youtube there's a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen that indicates that
that's the russian government. now also our pbs stations, our pbs postings are carrying a statement that says they have government funding as well. but i'm happy to have that there because we use source in assessing message, and assessing the credibility of the source matters to us. now more likely we're going to know who's talking to us when we see those posts. so i think we need to find ways to minimize the problematic, to increase the capacities, and on those things that are genuinely pernicious and problematic, fundamentally destructive of our systems and harmful to our children, we need to make sure that the platforms have stepped up and minimized the likelihood that anybody gets access to this content. but this is a free intersystem. these are -- enterprise system. i wouldn't want to wholesale try to get rid of them. >> host: if you had a bucket of money in 1984 and a bucket of money today and you were running for office, where would you put
it? >> guest: in '84 you would have put it on television and on radio. today you'd put a it disproportionately on social media. and you would do it in a way that micro-targets as efficiently you possibly can. now, you're going to miss some people in the process, because one of your callers is essentially offline, and that person is going to be reached through other means. but if i had a bucket of money, i would hire the best policy advisers i could to make sure i was up to speed on the challenges facing the nation. and i'd hire the best communication capacity that i could get in order to find ways to make those topics that are hard to understand easier the understand so the country can say to its elected leaders, i'm willing to have you act in these domains, and i want you to act. so if we think about the messaging as if that's all we've got and not what's in the message, i think we do a really big disservice. i'd like to see more money spent on developing policies and
finding ways to get them out there and a little less spent on the messaging that gets them there. >> host: increasingly, you write in "dirty politics," campaigns have become narcotics that blur our awareness of problems long enough to elect the lawmakers who must deal with them. >> guest: one of the things we can learn from history is that when a candidate steps up on an issue and makes it salient, the candidate can make a difference. i was impressed that ross perot managed to do that. he managed to put the deficit and the debt on the national agenda. campaigns don't have to be narcotics. they don't have to be promising us things that cannot be delivered. they can, in fact, be ways to get us to address problems that we're actually confronting as a country. the question is how do we incentivize that and increase the likelihood that when candidates do step up, they're electable? i think people mislearned the lesson in '84.
mondale said he would increase taxes, and as a result, he was defeated. i think the lesson instead was the mondale messaging campaign, coming from his strategists in the form of his advertising, failed to blunt the charge that he was going to use his money that he raised through taxes for new social programs. the public didn't believe that he was going to use it to reduce the deficit. they believed he was going to use it for new social programs. if he was honest in saying it was going to reduce the deficit, he had a communication problem. he didn't communicate that clearly. so sometimes we mislearn the lessons of the past when someone steps up the try the address a real problem and then loses, we misread the implications of that. i think we did that in '84. >> host: throughout all your books you talk about cognitive process. [laughter] >> guest: yes. the -- we assume evely that the message -- naively that the message sits out there. the message actually comes into a process by which we make sense of it or we don't.
we feature some facets of it or we don't. we counter-argue it or we don't. and to the extent that that process is not understood, we misunderstand how communication functions. so one of the things that's important as we ask how communication functions is that we don't look at all the issues that are available for discussion. we don't look at all the candidate characteristics and the whole biography. we feature a fairly narrow set of considerations, but we decide for whom to vote. and we don't largely control what those are, our communication environment does. so to the extent that our communication environment doesn't tell us that we have roads and bridges and airports and water systems that need repair, we're not going to be thinking about those as we're voting. to the extent that we're not told that we need to be concerned about the survivability of medicare, medicaid and social security, we're not thinking about those things. if the system says instead we should care about now fill in those things that we were told to care about in past elections as advertising on those topics
increases, so too does the likelihood we think about them as we vote. as news focuses on some facets of a candidate's behavior, we're more likely to think about them as we vote. all of that is us cognitively reconfiguring our world to make some things more important even as we think we're assessing the objective reality we are not. >> host: when you look back at 2016, were you as shocked as a lot of the country on november 8th? >> guest: no, i was not. i watched the process of 2016 listening to -- and, again, this is the advantage that academics have who get the privilege of being in media space. so as i was talking on radio talk shows, on basically national public radio affiliates across the country, about things like the electoral dynamic, etc., and trying to make sure that our factcheck.org material was getting out there, i was hearing from callers a sense of anxiety, a sense of indecision,
people grappling. these are people of goodwill and intelligence who were not simply saying i'm a democrat or republican, i know what i'm going to do. they were having a really hard time making the decision. i was also watching the polling data which was suggesting a very high level of undecided vote coming into the final weeks. we knew there were higher percents of people saying they were independent coming into the final weeks, and we were looking at our own polling data and seeing high levels of disaffection with both candidates. all of that meant that coming into the final weeks that election was still wide open. and in that environment, i was cautious about projecting anything about outcome. it's not really what i'm good at anyway, but you could say that in that environment you couldn't confidently say here's what's going to happen. >> host: from our facebook page, julie asks: how can we protect ourselves from being influenced by real fake news? >> guest: well, first, i don't want to use the word "fake
news," so i try not to normalize it by using it. because if something is news, by my definition, when you point out something inaccurate about it, it corrects itself. so that that's a hallmark of journalism. so it can't be persistently fake and still be news. that's an oxymoron. and to the extent that journalists talk about fake news, they're discrediting their own enterprise, because they're suggesting they don't honor the norm of correction in the face of evidence that they've been wrong about something. i prefer the phrase viral deception because, first, i like v.d. as an acronym. i want people to think venereal disease, vd. i don't want to catch it, i don't want to transmit it. if i catch it, i want the get rid of it, try and quarantine it. ..
the political committee case and caused that? >> we experienced politics as a result of communication about politics. legitimizing forms of attack treating people not as respected - - but rather people we don't grant goodwill and integrity too. we have a problem.the move toward that is not simply a recent move. we've been studying the breakdown in civility since the 1990s. if you remember, you had three different retreats put together by the house of representatives to try to restore - - in congress but that was because of the discourse standards were starting to erode. part of what has eroded those has been access to channels of communication in which we have normalized kinds of discourse that are not the kind you hear of in the house and senate floor. to the extent that people are
comfortable inside for example, cable channels that have more partisan identities on the one side or the other. we are creating environments in which we've got more like-minded communication. likely to dismiss the other side. what you're more likely to dismiss theother side , somehow distorting the other side's point of view seems more legitimate than now. are we more hospitable, to more maybe name-calling is acceptable. we did a study of what we considered illegitimate. we've done studies on those three retreats about behaviors in the house of representatives but we took the same kinds of standards. the standards of discourse in the house of representatives. we looked at things like one sizing another person on the other side was identified with hitler.
so we had a rally in which scott walker was aligned with hitler and a rally in which president obama was aligned with hitler. we had. instances where republican and democrat both being pictured in that fashion. we looked at how the more liberal cable stations and the more conservative cable stations play those two things being what they did was unfortunate but it tells us something important. they overrepresented the likelihood that that had occurred against the candidate they preferred. this is just an instance. this is not common across all of the rallies where all of the republicans or democrats. instead of thinking of this as one isolated, hence aberrational instance. it was made to look typical. the way was being treated on the station that did not share that ideology. that happened on both sides. there's a tendency as a result a our side isn't reaching discourse standards. it's a bear sign. it's typical they do that to our candidate. we haven't noticed it on your side because it's not featured.
if it's featured at all it's underrepresented on your side and its atypicality is stressed. we created a communication structure will begin like-minded space. begin to play out to licensed forms of discourse by virtue of seeing it over there. you're likely to say, they did it so we should be able to do it too. to respond in kind. we naturally are mirrors as communicators. you call me a nasty name, i'm more likely to call you a nasty name and that were more likely to escalate.so now you escalate up and do something that's even more inappropriate. suddenly, it's become appropriate because we've normalized it. it's been there for a while and is problematic. first, that's not a good way to
have community. if we can't grant goodwill and integrity of people with whom we disagree politically, how will we hold together our cities and neighborhoods? it's all creating tensions inside families. you have the situations in which, we now have republican saying it would be awful if was our daughter married a democrat and democrats think would be awful if they married a republican. look at these wonderful marriages that are not happening because of civic partisanship. it's making it more difficult to come together to solve needed national problems. >> there's a book coming up by psychotherapist jeannie shaper was married to richard burr kaiser entitled, i love you, but i hate your politics. that's the name of the book. we will be talking to her on booktv as well. sonny from potomac, maryland. go ahead. >> - - great insight on an depths. i think i will have to get one or maybe more of your books. congratulations. i have a question relating to micro-targeting and source identity as well as
disinformation campaigns. is there a way for us to recognize when trolling is happening and is trolling illegal? if there's a way to identify a source of the message, just as on tv. you say this was sponsored by such and such candidate running for president and so forth. similar, source identity on micro-targeting messages would be helpful i believe. at least getting the right message in the right context. >> i agree with you. if you sit back - - think back to the past history of political advertising. we've had to deal with problem outside social media before social media happened. for example, we have independent expenditure groups that i used to call the god,
mom and apple pie groups. they were trying to pretend they shared your values. if you actually were able to find out who they were, often, they were using forms of money and disclosures not required to that you couldn't. you would find out they were engaged in special interest advocacy. sometimes not on the topic of which they had special interest. sometimes they'd be trying to defeat a candidate who they didn't like on some grounds but that was on a completely different topic because that was the area in which the candidate was most vulnerable. we've had to deal with disguised identities for a while and it is problematic. when we are assessing whether we should accept the message or not. increasing with the platforms are trying to do, is to tell us what else this group has been using for messaging. that helps you identify the patterns. now, in some cases, you're able to scroll up and find out why you were targeted. what was the pattern of
targeting behind the messaging to you. that makes us more aware that we are the objects of influence. i think that's all positive. to the extent we can start to examineeverything that one group has done. these groups within the united states , they don't have to be groups that are trying to subvert our system from abroad to there able to determine the motive of the individual and the reason we are the object of their attention. and that's all to the good. by troll, what i'm talking about in terms of russians, people disguising their identities. from a foreign nation, working in st. petersburg. i know a troll is used differently in some other social media contexts so i'm trying to define it in a specific way. >> in your book, you call these glittering generalities. the mom and apple pie action groups. >> if we are not careful, we
basically, when we hear our values being reinforced. then to like the person reinforcing our values. what that leads us to think is they are like us and we don't know they are being advertised by permissions individuals trying to do evil things. that would be my way of the ã let's put the glittering generality in place on the other end of the spectrum. as a result, making you more wary of it. >> is it a case where we are self-selecting to read, and watch things we agree with because i want to be reinforced? >> we want our biases to be confirmed. it doesn't take much energy to have them confirmed. it's hard work to listen to something you oppose and to grant it the ability to work on you. open-mindedness is something with the work toward and not something we naturally have. you feel it. if you say, i'm going to wake up and deliberately at the
beginning of the day, try to read the editorial points of view that are different from my own. you try to monitor how much effort it's taking you to do that without clients - - count arguing. you get the sense of whites difficult to be open to them. everything about you is trying to say, it's wrong. to the extent that everything in our culture is making it easier to be in that space. we count arguing dismissed instead of listening. week are created from our systems. >> rosemary. scranton, pa. >> i have a question, when eric holder was agp and he was held in contempt.representative nadler said he would hold ag barr in contempt. what does that mean and - - [indiscernible]?
>> way outside my area of expertise. i appreciate the sentimentthat i am not qualified to respond . >> political communication and those types of issues. next call is norm in sumner, washington. >> yes. i was going to check next week. >> you are on booktv right now. are you aware of that? >> washington this time of year can be nice. >> maria, in albuquerque, new mexico. >> i have a question. i think you're brilliant kathleen. are your books in public libraries across the nation? also, are they in college libraries.
if not, how do we get them they are? >> thank you for the nice thought. i'm pleased to say i've been published by very good publishers who done a good job of getting the books out. to the extent we now have online capacity to get them in libraries. we are increasing likelihood that libraries don't have to keep them on the shelf. the larger library system subscribe to services and give them access to large numbers of these things as a result. the other thing that's important to know is there's a lot of really good material you can have access to that you don't have to pay for. if you can't afford it. although public libraries are a national resource we ought to be supporting and be grateful for. that check.org is available online at no cost. i encourage those who care about the factual underpinnings of policy particular look at that site. we would love to have you subscribe.
>> we've got a half hour with our guest, booktv.org. 202-748-8200 and the east. 202-748-8202 for mountain and central time zones. we will also scroll our social media sites in case you can't get through on the phone. i don't know if you remember this, but back with "packaging the presidency". i think you'll find this interesting. the national conservative political action committee used the phrase, make america great again. so that is not a new - - necessarily a new phrase. >> nor is it a new sentiment. there's a desire always to recover the parts of the past that we remember as positive. and we forget when we covered
them, they were things back there we probably don't want to recover in the process. with that sentiment is doing is expressing a nostalgia about the good we remember that as a result, it's a powerful form of appeal.but there are things of america of the past that we have moved past.we've gotten better than that as a country. >> are you still in the classroom? >> i am. >> what are you teaching? >> i just finished grading papers. which is focused on working with the doctoral students and studying texts. they are looking at things such as how our narratives constructed. what does it mean to look carefully at language as essentially forms of metaphoric expression. how do we identify, who is speaking to us in a text.
and then carefully extended pieces of discourse and trying to make better sense of them. in fall, i taught an undergraduate course. i've been teaching some form since 1970. that's the history. there was in the book from which to teach it. i wrote it thinking - - i do speak too rapidly. i know that. they can read more effectively than listen to me speak to many words per minute. but that course starts with the 1952 campaign - - starts in the 40s but it was through the history of advertising. it looks at how the debates, speeches and the news as well as the advertising intersect to create a sense of how a person will govern. when the person becomes president. it looks at psychological literature about how audiences make sense of the messages they get from candidates. it adds, how do we increase the likelihood that we are voting on things that actually matter.
that increase the likelihood by casting a vote on this basis, we are forecasting governance. learning things about leaders that will help us and ensure that the leader we elect will govern well. >> is your class at the university of pennsylvania, diverse politically? >> i try to make sure i don't know the answer to that question. my course is not about which side you are on. i try to make sure by the end of the semester, if they think i've got a site but it's a vegetarian and our kids.which is a joke. - - vegetarian anarchist. i don't think it is to determine where your ideology is or isn't. it's to understand how this process works and how scholars
and historians have learned about it they will go into a political system that many of them will try to affect. to try to increase the likelihood they are doing it in a way that increases the capacities of audiences to act well when they cast votes. to engage intelligently and to engage rather than checkout. when they're asked to come together because there's a real problem in their communities that theyneed to resolve. >> how many times have your , congress is awful? i like my congressman. >> that's a phenomenon that's actually general and goes beyond congress. people say the public school system is a total catastrophe. i love my public school teacher. interestingly, before the off year election of 2014, some of the polls adjusted the public was starting to say maybe they vote all of the incumbents out. we took that seriously enough
that we fielded a study because we thought that would be a change. ordinarily, we reelect incumbents overwhelmingly. we mounted a major study. basically, the incumbents were reelected. the sentiment is pretty strong even as people say it's broken and i don't like it. the people at the local level are doing well and serving my needs well. with that speaks to is at least at the congressional level, the capacity of candidates to get to know the people inside their district is such that it reinforces the belief that there is competenceof air. that there is integrity there . it's hard to deceive people about a person you actually know but i'm confident that when we look at our neighborhoods and cities and communities, if we get down to the mayor level in our cities, we have a lot of good governance that is respected . sometimes we talk as if everything is broken but i think some things are doing
pretty well. >> let's hear from christian who is in oakland gardens, new york. hi christian. >> hi, how are you doing? hi mrs. jamison. i'm in upstate new york of the rural areas of the united states. we seem to vote for tromp. and the cities seem to be democrat. this is something that is a trend also in europe i am singing because of brexit. the people in the rural areas, try to get out of the european union and the people in the cities of course, they seem to not. what are you seeing here? is this something you think will get worse in europe and the united states? also, trump hats. people are getting attacked. is that a civil rights violation? rex two questions. the city /rural divide and
trump hats. >> i grew up in rural minnesota. i grew up in a rural environment there something in a rural environment where the individuals interaction with the community is different in some ways then it is when you're in more congested space. the relationship to government in some ways is different. when you're in a rural environment then when you're in the city. i don't think that plays a big part of the explanation as to why rural voters and urban voters tend to support different political parties. on average, your kinds of people demographically and as a result have different dispositions bakes in to those like experiences.
one of the things we need to ask is, to what extent will we engage in political campaignin . are we representing the interests of all of those people in a way that lets them see themselves as part of one large community? and not think of themselves in very specific kinds of terms that are geographically mounted. we are so interconnected right now as a country. our economy is so interconnected, that what happens in our farming communities, affects all of us. what happens in our cities, affects all of us. we gerrymander in order to create congressional districts. tends to create representatives for one kind of economy as opposed to another kind of economy. i think we'd be better off if we let these things spread out geographically so we have voters across those interests inside a community voting district.
so the representative would have to represent all of those interests. hence, a broader community. i don't think anyone should be attacked for anything they wear or that they do or political point of view. that they are representing honorably. i find it extremely problematic that when one sees once representing another's point of view, some people automatically assume, i can't like that person. i don't want to get to know that person.that can work on both sides as we see people wearing t-shirts or buttons on one side. i'd like to live in a world when you see someone wearing something that identifies with a political party that isn't your own that you want to get to know them better as you'd like to know why they are identifying that weapon in the small town i grew up in, we had people of both political parties although most people, it was a rural environment where republican more than democrat. went on came to visit that small town, everybody turned out, listened respectfully and asked good questions.
even though nobody changed their mind about how they would vote. i think it's possible to be civil, learn from each other without changing our ideology or dispositions as a result. >> how did you go from minnesota to philadelphia. what sparked your interest in doing what you do? rex minnesota isn't interesting stay. >> my assumption is the people that survived there, the awful winters are just a heartier bunch of people. they're just in some ways, just different. we always assume the week all died off and some stubborn group of people stayed there through winter after winter. i went to - - for college for debate. minnesota, wisconsin had things in common during my childhood. they were politically engaged communities in which we took
for granted that people would vote. you'd meet your representative at the state fair and it would be a good thing. you wouldn't shun them because they were there and wanted to shake your hand. the civic culture was a rich culture and a distillers by the way. the amount of civic engagement in the form of a public radio station that airs lectures given by westminster church for example. the interactions on public radio suggests. i went to marquette university for college that the committee minnesota right next door. still made the assumption that that's what politics looked like. married my husband now of more than 50 years. he wanted to work for the navy department in washington d.c.. the university of maryland wanted someone to teach political communication i said i think i can do that. that's how i got to maryland. was recruited by the university of texas. spent three years there and came back to the east coast where i've been ever since. i still go back to minnesota on
a regular basis. when we try to find different places in the united states to study how politics is working, we still go back to places, interestingly, like maine and minnesota in order to try to find things like town halls. gatherings where people actually still get together. so we can listen to them. deliberate about things that matter to their communities. i wish we can find a way to bring back more of that because that community engagement increases the likelihood that communities do good things to preserve the well-being of everybody inside their community. >> as a youngster, were you interested in politics? did you follow it? where - - was there somebody that sparked this? rex we had onto miami that always watched the sunday talk show. from a very young age, i would remember her watching the sunday talk shows. and i loved her so i would watch with her.
i come from a - - family one parent and republican and one parent a democrat in that environment, we were exposed to conversations that were respectful across the aisle. apparently they disagreed about politics. they had a long and successful marriage. five great kids. they modeled an environment which that was part of your life but those disagreements didn't define you. and on the big issues, they didn't disagree. they agreed about the thingsthe nation needed to do . that the members of congress needed to do. even though republicans or democrats depending on the parent, would do a better job at it. >>. [indiscernible] is that a new phenomenon or has it been around forever? >> what we are expecting is a high level of ideological
purity. that there's no candidate who is right for any individual. and that we are providing the kind of tests that require people to take stands on issues of the can actually act on in governance. i come from a conservative county and - - has been a more democratic state but a conservative county inside minnesota. in that environment, we worry about things like how do you pay for things. if you ask what's the influence on my childhood and how i think about politics now, i'm often asking the question. when a candidate says i will do this. is it desirable, yes. how will you pay for it? massive tax cut? is it desirable? how will we pay for it. i'll be going to cut spending? i think there's a lens that comes from a conservative environment in which one was more focused on that set of issues.
to the extent as one comes into politics and asks, what it is that shaped you. that coupled with the rigorous environment that says you can always debate any issue. a perspective on politics that says sometimes the republicans have good ideas and sometimes the democrats have goodideas. i do want to know, how in the long term will you pay for it? how can we maintain the level of debt and deficit we've got . because we come from an environment that respect the fact the country has had to have a strong defense at key times. also asking, how do webalance social and military needs ? is really part of the equation as well. >> let's hear from filling calling in from pemberton, new jersey . >> good afternoon c-span and
miss jamison.just two questions and i will do them real quick. should primaries be on the same date in all states? second question: during the primaries, should people be allowed to go throughthe person regardless of the party ? like we used to do so many years ago. the third one, your thoughts of paper versus electronic ballot . >> let me take your third question first. we need a paper trail on ballots. because of the capacity to hack electronic systems, we need for the integrity of the ballots to ensure there's a way to verify. a paper trail becomes away to verify. i am hopeful our systems are able to have that in place . i don't want to see a primary across the whole nation on one day. we are able to see the interest of different parts of our country. i liked would like to see them grouped by a category.
so there's a group of cameras where we will focus on trade. a group of primaries to focus on how do we ensure we have - - etc. a number of states where we will focus on issues that concern climate. i think there would be higher levels of learning if we could find a way to get those things clustered in a way that makes sense. and i don't remember your third question. >> closed primaries. should primaries be all on the same day. >> i don't think on the same day. in pennsylvania, if you are functionally independent, you are disenfranchised. for practical purposes. you register with one of the other party because you want to be able to vote in the primary. i would like a system in which voters are able to vote regardless of party identification. i think that makes a great deal
of sense. i also like the idea of having candidates to come down, one, two, three in order to being able to run against that order, regardless of party. so why not? have voting across and then have as many candidates as the field can sustain and runoff against the candidates on top. might be to candidates that are democrats in some cases. or three that are identified with someone that isn't either one of those. the whole structure is making it harder for third-party ideas to come forward. in the times which third parties have important things to simply part of the reason we have much of what we have in our current system occurred in the 1900s. came out because of third parties were still able to create influence on the rest of the system and i think we need to go back to that if we
possibly can. >> there's also a move to keep donald trump off the ballot in california. with that be legitimate? >> i'd want to make sure that we still have something that provides the ideological coherence. from virtually everything else, it makes sense. especially at the congressional level. >> email from paul. donald trump has effectively used nonfactual statements to get elected and to support his agenda. should democrats and his opponent start using nonfactual statements tosupport their own candidacies and goals ? thank you. we will let you break down that email. he made two definitive statements. >> first, i think we need to step way back on this discussion and ask, what is it
about the fact the city that matters? why is it we have to protect back to - - facticity. if you act on the assumption that - - is 42 percent but you will put in place policies that will be highly problematic if the unemployment rate is actually four percent. or five percent in the factual underpinnings of policy decisions actually matter. as a result, we have to have places where we can go to to trust that their methodology is sound and being perfected when it's challenged. and that is being honestly deployed with no partisan influence whatsoever. so we have to assume our bureau of labor statistics is telling us something important that lets us track data across time. for example, the gross the mystic product means something and across time it's tracking something important. without the actual
underpinning, we can't engage in intelligent policymaking or legislation. some statements that are not factual are more problematic than others.because they bear more policymaking capacity. and they intrude more on our capacity to get it right when they've gotten it wrong. in that context when a democrat or a republican engages in statistical misinformation or misstatement of something and then feels incumbent upon themselves to act on it.it is problematic, regardless of party. >> before we run out of time that we always asked our guests here on in-depth what they are reading and what their favorite books are. we asked the same of doctor kathleen hall jamieson. just want to make sure you get a chance to see this list she has provided us. favorite books. gary wills, lincoln at gettysburg. alice walker, the color purple. james joyce the dead. i will you comment on that. >> i think that is a brilliant
story. that is highly evocative and tells us something very important about human memory and regret.it's also beautifully written. if i had to pick just one thing that i would want to read and reread in moments where i have doubts about the human condition, i would actually read it. one of the reasons i think we read is for function, particularly academics. the answer is, i'm reading in the areas that i'm writing. there has to be areas of our lives that isn't that and i use james joyce, that piece in particular. as a reminder not to get too immense in which i'm reading things that are only highly functional for me. >> kathleen hall jamieson is
currently reading eliza griswold's book, amity and prosperity. she's being suggested to run for office because of that boo . i'm sorry, i got the wrong candidate. strike that, yes. dan egan, the life and death of the great lakes. richard powers, the over story. you mentioned david blight earlier, pulitzer prize winner for frederick douglass. jeffrey stewart, the new negro. >> by the way, one of my secrets about how to determine what i'm going to read outside the areas i'm writing about. i try to read faulkner winners and pulitzer winners. why would you not take advantage of all that talent that went through that trouble to figure out these are things worth reading. there are few disappointments in following that as a guide into summer reading. >> been badly junior, the forgotten point how the people
of one pennsylvania county elected donald trump. >> that is they are because we are engaged in functional reading. we are mounting a study for 2020, and we're trying to found the counties across the united states that are going to be the most interesting to us to understand how communication works. so we are looking for counties that supported president obama and then-president trump. there is a county that focuses but it got my reading list because i need to know more about luzern county in pennsylvania. >> patrick lawrence kansas, please go ahead. >> good afternoon, professor jamison. i'm in my fourth decade of enjoying and learning through your commentary.>> thank you. >> i have a question about the hillary clinton comment about the basket of deplorable. can you explain why she made that comment. why she did it in the particular audience she made it to and what was the impact?
thank you. >> before we hear from professor jamison, what do you think the impact was? >> i'm from kansas. most people were shocked at the arrogance or the insensitivity or the tone deafness of that statement. >> now you live in lawrence, kansas. university town. maybe a little more and liberal. were you offended by that comment? >> i was. i'm from her role western kansas - - rural. >> what do you do in lawrence, patrick? >> i work in kansas city. i am a tax attorney. >> one of the ways in which we assess candidates, uses as our
filter. what do they really believe? we spend a lot of time trying to figure that out. candidates are so scripted much of the town but some candidates. there are exceptions. when we find a contemporaneous utterance, which tend to teach it as having special evidentiary value. when candidate obama talks about clinging to your guns and religion. candidate romney talks about the 47 percent who wouldn't support a republican anyway. when hillary clinton dismisses half of candidate trump supporters as a basket of deplorable. those are moments that become strong indictments by the other side because of our tendency to think, that's what they must believe because they said in private. one way to ask what the effect is is how much it's used inside the political dialogue. each of those statements separately were used extensively against the candidate in the first case,
the obama statement was used by hillary clinton and the pennsylvania primary very effectively in 2008. the romney comment was used by the obama campaign. very effective in national advertising. the deplorable was used across the campaign and social media against hillary clinton. every voter needs to ask in those moments, filtered by their own ideology but what might make of those? in hillary clinton's case, what made it problematic is her slogan was stronger together. if your slogan is stronger together but you regard half of your opposing candidates constituents, voters as a basket of deplorable. it doesn't sound as if you're living with conviction. the expression in your slogan. and so what i can say is, if that was problematic for those individuals with that point didn't like both of the candidates very much. what might have been disposed to cast a democratic vote. but we are not terribly fond of
hillary clinton. they were probably think they were independent rather than thing they were democrats and were undecided at the point at which the statement was maybe once you decided who to vote, you tend to hold that position. more people than is historically usual were still undecided late in the election. which means open to hearing that statement and interpreting it heard the clinton candidacy. yes i do. >> kathleen hall jamieson, thank you for spending two hours on in-depth on booktv. >> it's been my pleasure. ...