tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN August 10, 2015 11:00am-1:01pm EDT
that she founded media matters, whose head is a major operative for hillary clinton, for them to discuss anybody else putting out propaganda is pretty rich stuff. it is funny in a case like this when the media elite felt that fox asked them tough questions, that the reaction from these people is, it is all acharade. obviously, they can't be this way. this is part of an evil and nefarious conspiracy to seem credible to liberals, i just don't buy it. >> how is the media covering hillary clinton's campaign and the democratic nomination process versus the republican candidates and that nomination process? >> hillary clinton on the evening news has the most amount of coverage, about 190 minutes of coverage. trump is coming in second with 116. she is dominating the democratic race, all the polls would show you that. if you look at a candidate who has gotten the most positive
amount of coverage, if not the most, that would be bernie sanders. a lot of commentary about the size of his crowd and his appeal. the coverage of mrs. clinton has been pretty negative. a lot of that focused on her e-mails. i think the thing that really is remarkable to us as media analysts is how she has decided to run this campaign. i'm not granting interviews and not do too much press, take a couple of local press questions, maybe. it is amazing to me that she can get away with that. i start to wonder if the press has any self-respect. they didn't look like they had a lot of self-respect when they were roped in on the street. >> she responds on twitter to whatever the debate is happening, whether it is in washington or outside of washington. she will come to twitter to respond that way. what do you make of candidates using that rather than using the
mainstream immediate krmedia? >> that can be the most canned, consultant-driven material. it is not the same as the back and forth with the journalist. she is running a very canned campaign, exactly what she did in 2007, ran a canned campaign. they were doing more immediate kra back then than she is doing now. one of the things they did back then was abc had these 45-minute town hall meetings with three of the democratic candidates. with obama, with john edwards, with hillary clinton, republicans never get that kind of air time. they are certainly not going to get it with 17 candidates. >> we are talking about media and politics with tim graham, who is the media analysis director for the media research center and also the executive director of news busters and co-author with the media research centers president, brett bosul of the book's collusion, how the media stole the 2012 election and how to prevent it from happening again
in 2016. ba barb, you are up first, a republican in pendleton, oregon. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been watching c-span for years and years and years. i am one of the old ones. i'm in my 70s. i am very strong and involved with politics all of my life. i was a john kennedy backer and also worked for bobby. i have clanged totally over, because i'm not interested in the media and politics being able to tell us what is politically correct. i am a trump. i am backing trump, because he is a leader. as far as the ten that are up there, you can pull part of your -- he can pull part of his cabinet from them. they have got some sharp ones up there. i am also a backer of cruz. i would love to see him as
vice-president. however, things have got to change. we do not get, other than c-span, we do not get anything that is open to people. it's basically whatever anybody thinks. we are not talking about what's really wrong in this country. this country is in a mess in all directions. we are going to have to get somebody in there and change it and turn it around. i think trump can. >> tim graham? >> i think there is a lot of the appeal here in trump. this is where the media comes in. they see ross perot in 1992 and '96. the whole notion of running the government like a business. i think journalists when they look at this race sort of love the idea of trump. there is this idea of he can be either the guy that takes the republican nomination and sort of the bull in the china shop or he becomes the third-party candidate like perreault and
like in '92, elects a clinton. i think those two scenarios both delight the journalists in my opinion. >> what do you make of barb's sentiment? we have heard it from other callers, there is this anti-establishment, and included in the anti-establishment is this anti-established against the established media? >> sure. >> it is not just what's happening in congress or at the white house. there is this skepticism and cynicism towards the mainstream media. >> the immediate kmedia has a l. one of the reasons with he do what we do, television, starting with john kennedy, became a very powerful factor in who we decide to be president and who runs the government day to day. now, we're at a point where the media seem to want to say who the president should be but once they become president, the issues are too boring. i don't expect that there will be a lot of heavy new coverage this morning of the new epa
regulations. this is not the kind of story they like to do now. they would rather have, what did trump say about megyn kelly's time of the month? great. let's do 20 minutes for that. i think to some extent, it is insulting, really, to the voter. they think we get a lot of people in this audience that don't vote or vote rarely. that's not really our concern. it is all about how many times can we get these people to watch the red lobster commercials. >> 24 million people did tune in to that debate. what do you make of the interest there? >> well, again, yes. here is a figure who is sort of a to be lloyd figure who is kind of ace, what is he going to say next? you probably had a much higher democratic audience for this than you normally would for republican debate. they were looking to see what kind of train wreck is this going to be? i'm surprised at how large it was. it was twice as large as i might have expected it to be. we'll see if that continues. but this is one of the reasons
why they are doing so much coverage of trump. they think he is good for their business and they think he is good for their agenda, i think. >> that's one of the headlines that you can find on media research center website, mrc.org. tv campaign, 2016 news. an avalanche of trump coverage, not much for others. >> frank is a democrat, inglewood, colorado. hi, frank. >> caller: hi. i had a question. trump is entirely a media creation. i was wondering whether you think that having someone like donald trump, someone who is otherwise a reality show presenter with a boatload of money running a viable presidential campaign, does that represent the end of our fair and true democracy and fair and true media coverage in america as we know it? >> i think it is kind of democracy as it operates now. i like the caller who is making
the point that trump is somehow seen as the populous, not the lobbyist. >> i gave money to hillary so she would come to my wedding really does say to some extent what donors to candidates expect. sometimes it is just a personal thing and not a policy thing. a lot of times it is a policy thing. donald trump has the right to run for president. he has one of the things that every candidate wants. he has very high name i.d. he has been sort of that representative of the new york business community since what, the '80s. he has been around a long time. you can see where the news media would find him an interesting candidate. it is funny in a way. i think journalists think he doesn't have any experience. he would probably need a lot of education as to how to be president. they are just enjoying the ride right now. i think they want to see where it goes. they expect he wouldn't even file his campaign finance disclosures.
they are just kind of riding it while the campaign continues. >> houston, texas, ricky, next, a republican. >> caller: how are you doing? i'm just calling because i think it is really important that you look at the fact that the indicator of 24 million watching the debate tells me what i've been knowing for at least two decades now, and that's the problem with the treasonous media and their propaganda for democrat and liberal causes and progressive causes. i think we are starting to wake up to that fact. we are now rejecting anything that the media is doing just to show them that we are sincere about what we are going to look for in a candidate. now, i don't think trump is it. however, i would say i would rather trump than any of the gop
well wishers, such as jeb bush or the like. i think we have to stick together and recognize that unless we turn off the abc, cbs, nbc and cnn, and start really listening to what our hearts are saying, we will find this country is really going to go downward until we decide it's time, we've had enough of what the treasonous media has done. >> tim graham? >> well, i wouldn't say treasonous, necessarily. i think that, again, the problem we have with our media today is, let's take a look at something like the national debt. this is not a story that they do. you could look at all the coverage for 2012 and look at the word deficit. you would have a hard time finding a place. mitt romney was trying to find an issue. the news media weren't
interested in it. that was not an issue. they simply decided it was not an issue and was not going to be on the table. that is the sort of thing where you say, if the national media would like to present itself as a referee of our politics, the referee is missing a lot of the time. the main focus is, who is up, who is winning, who is losing and who said what about who. the substance gets lost a lot. >> trenton, missouri, robert, independent. >> caller: hello. >> hi, robert. you are on the air. question or comment. >> caller: well, it is about donald trump. when he was up there and they were questioning him and everything and he said he owned about, "x" number of businesses and he is hiring american citizens and they are paying taxes, why didn't they ask the rest of those representatives, how many businesses do you own? how many people are you hiring? no. they are doing nothing but sucking money out of the public. there is not a one of them worth
voting for except trump, because he don't want their money. he don't need their money. he is running his own campaign and he don't like lob byists. he don't like special interests. he don't want none of their money. he don't want anything to do with them. now, why in the world the american scitizens can't wake u and realize we need a man like that in there that knows business, knows who you to run a business, because america is a great big business? >> robert. we understand that. what do you make of how he is being covered by the television networks, by the print media? >> caller: well, i'll tell you. they are all afraid of him, because all of them up there are in the pockets of lob byists, special interests and big business. trump isn't. he owns his own businesses. he runs his own country, his own
businesses. the rest of them, all they want is whatever money that the lob byists and special interests can put in their pocket. >> got your point, robert. tim graham. >> i find that completely mind-boggling. i don't like the lob byists and i don't like the special interests. it doesn't make sense to me. there is another business person in the race, in carly fiorina, who was the ceo of hewlett-packard. you would have to think that perhaps next time when they do polling, she might end up in the first tier of the debate. i don't think that just because somebody has been a politician, that somehow disqualifies them from being president of the united states. maybe i have been here in washington too long. that doesn't make any sense to me. there are a number of governors. governors aren't here in washington but they are running governments in the state. i don't think that's a disqualification in any way. >> what about the coverage of carly fiorina? is she being propped up
superficially or artificially? there haven't been a lot of questions about her business operations. >> again, generally, she does get asked about being fired. that's usually the first thing that comes up. the amount of her coverage in the networks is very small. we are talking about these people are getting a minute. jim webb got 19 seconds. when you get down there in the weeds, they are getting almost no coverage whatsoever. i think that this debate performance is one chance for her to get a little bit of air time. >> is the coverage of bernie sanders matching the amount of people that are showing up for his events? 12,000 in seattle. >> i didn't see overnight what or how they covered sanders there. this, to me, presents the only chance where bernie sanders gets negative coverage. these black lives matters keep showing up and trying to ruin his events. this is one of the things about republicans that are amusing. republican voters don't do that.
they are man nerl and well-behaved. they don't try to interrupt your campaign. what the news media won't do. we saw them not do this. they don't look at it and say, this could be trouble for the democrats if they can't even have events that don't turn into this sort of a frac cass. it reminds some of us older people in the 1972 convention. not that i was very old. the mcgovern convention was a mess because they let people talk until you got nominated until 2:00 in the morning. that's the messy way the democrats look sometimes. i this i that is a danger for that. >> columbus, georgia, duncan, democrat. good morning to you. >> caller: good morning, ma'am. thank you for taking my call. my comments for the most part are about mr. trump's hatred, comments and remarks about anyone who says anything negative about him. you know, it's really sad. i was really saddened by the comments that he made in regards
to miss kelly. as far as i was concerned, it was a fair course. he tends to say a lot of hatred and very ugly things about people. i imagine just because he can, because he is a rich man and all that stuff. like a lot of others, it is no excuse for the things that he says. i'm amazed by the people that according to the polls have fallin behind him. i understand politics a little bit. i'm a 57-year-old man. i follow it just a tad. our politics has reached a new low with this gentleman here. it is beyond.
he gets in these news conferences and what have you. the ones that i have watched, he is not saying anything, anything. >> okay, tim graham. >> this is the funny part, though. here we have trump. he is always over the sunday shows. some of the other republican candidates got some air time on sunday to come on and talk. where is mrs. clinton? so every time i see donald trump take tough questions and that was a tough question. it was a personal question. i can understand as a candidate how that would be an upsetting question. the other candidates did get tough questions. jeb bush got the iraq question. there were a lot of hardballs out there. the first thing i think of when i look at those is to say, where is hillary clinton getting tough questions like this? i think fox news would ask her the tough questions if they got a chance. she is so atrade of tfraid of t. she is not doing the people that
really love her, like andrea mitchell on nbc, who would give her an adoring interview, she is not willing to do that. that's the dominant question i would like to ask as a media critic. why is mrs. clinton allowed to do this, to not speak? that ought to be a question that a self-respecting journalist would ask. >> and still get coverage. >> there are a lot of unanswered questions here that she could be asked on policy and her scandals. you have so many scandals with her. there are new ones, old ones, ones of medium age. we want to talk about women. there are lots of questions about clinton and women. there is a really hard question out there for democrats about planned parenthood right now that she is not having to answer. >> we'll go to richard next in lake placid, florida, independent caller. >> caller: good morning. the problem i am hearing. i am so glad it is turning this way. e republicans and democrats cannot and will not people are starting to see the
leeth. the republicans and the democrats cannot or will not fix problems like securing the border and creating jobs, balancing the budget. i don't know how long are we going to be fighting over there in the mideast and for what? sending troops, men and women over there to die for what? it's very obvious that the political parties have become a cartel. the people -- what the people want, their job is to protect people, protect the country, create the best environment, create jobs. they cannot do that or will not do that. trump, who has been a businessman, it doesn't seem like he is part of the political act. i think he can. a lot of people think he can. that's why he is getting the support he is getting. more power to him. from what i hear, it looks like it is 9 or 10-1 for him who has
been calling in this morning. i want to see trump go all the way. get rid of these two political parties and create a party for the people, for the country and for the world. we've been run by this ola garkky cartel for too long. all it does is create problems. >> again, how does the news media cover a balanced budget? we already hit that one. how does the news media cover immigration? remark edly slanted coverage of immigration. they don't really want to have a discussion about the negative impacts of immigration, whether it is illegal aliens, the burden on our health, education and information systems, whether we have issues where people are concerned about the culture and whether we can speak the english language. these are things they are not interested in. the conservative agenda on immigration. they are going to avoid all of those.
they see those all at racists. what we have gotten in coverage of immigration, is very sympathetic profiles of illegal aliens. that's generally where things start. >> keyport, new jersey. pat, you are on the air with tim graham and news busters and research center. >> caller: tim, i would like to know as someone who lives in a state with very little, if not no, influence on who is ever going to be the nominee for either party, why should i even care about these early debates? why shouldn't i wait until the nominee is decided, because the media decides first major candidates after new hampshire and iowa and then the nomination is all but wrapped up on super tu tuesday. the way the media covers this, why should i care? >> again, they are the ones running the show at this particular point. the candidates have their own plans. it is true. the interesting thing about all of this is that you have 17
candidates and you ask yourself how many of them are still going to be on the ballot at the iowa caucuses? i am going to bet about 15. somebody is going to run out of money and trip and fall. then, 8 or 10 of them will drop off after like two votes. that is kind of a frustrating thing. the voters really don't get much of a right to decide. we don't have these long, drawn-out primaries. obviously, we did in '08 with obama and clinton. they understood obama is going to win anyway. let's let mrs. clinton win a few. they weren't really concerned in the obama camp they were going to lose in '08. it ends dramatically before they get a role. i can see very much where you would say, i am not going to have an input as a voter on how this whole thing goes. yes. you have to have a media critic to make the media change the way these elections are run. >> let me bounce this headline
off of you in "the washington post," ann gearen's piece. hillary clinton starts taking some risks and landing some punches. his piece starts by saying she has taken to twitter to call out some of the other candidates and that she is taking some risks by doing that. >> she is not taking hardly yes risks right now. ann gearen knows that and ann gearen covered her like a cheerleader. she ought to answer for that. ann gearen thought benghazi was such a terrible issue, the poor dear, how is she going to handle this? it might mar her legacy. there are those that can't tell you what she accomplished as secretary of state. she flew around a lot. there are still a lot of questions about benghazi that
haven't been issued. the clinton scandals, most of our news media and specially the networks are not interested in covering. the obama scandals, the same thing. they cover for about ten days and drop off. >> another headline for you, politico had this recent story, dylan buyers, who covers the media. the media's summer fling with joe biden. his moving personal story and a desire for a competitive race leads to favorable coverage for the vice-president and some mt. media speculating that he would get softer coverage because of what has happened to him with the loss of his son. >> that to me strikes me as democratic nervousness. i don't think any of them. did joe biden run an impressive campaign in 1988? no. did joe biden run an impressive campaign in 2008 for the presidency? no. the idea that somehow he would be doing better than jim webb here, except for the fact that he is the vice-president of the united states, i think the thing
we find most maddening, the news busters, is the way that joe biden puts his foot in his mouth about twice a week. they all say, charming, the gfss are charming. that's one of the things where you say, that, to me isn't good. >> robert in smear nymrna, gent skra, democrat. you are next. >> caller: i would like to relate what goes on in the political arena to what went on in rome. they threw in glad yeators and animals to be slaughtered. you seem to be criticizing what fox news did. they are just giving the yahoos what they want. >> the great thing about the debate, it actually let other
candidates talk. it would have been better if they all got equal time. some of the backers of the candidates during the debate were tweeting, where is ted cruz? where did he go? where is ben carson? >> with that many candidates, that's kind of the risk, that people are going to get lost in the middle. by the end, it balances out. at least you got to see all the candidates. >> there was one statistic. moderators spoke 31% of the time. >> that happens a lot. bret baier said in "time" magazine before the debate, this he know that short questions are probably better in terms of being a hardball question, the shorter, the better. mrs. graham watching at home was upset the candidates didn't answer the questions. obviously, this is one of the things politicians do when the consultants tell them. it doesn't matter what the question is whatsoever. you do lose voters sometimes that way. >> milo in iowa, independent caller. what do you make of media and
their coverage of the 2016 campaign and public policy debates here in washington? >> caller: well, good morning. i would just like to remind the folks that believe that trump was getting some bad questions. i thought every question asked and the debate of every question was tough. if they think mr. trump got tough questions, if he gives that, i would like to remind him that the liberal hounds of hell will be released, unleashed on donald trump if he gets the nomination. the slander and the ammunition that he is giving them right now, if we thought it was, this will totally exceed anything. the treasonous media.
really paid attention. it is too bad. that's how it is. mr. trump will have a very hard time if he is the nominee. >> mr. grant? >> i think i would put money on that prediction as well. if trump is the nominee of the republican party as opposed to running third party, i think in this sort of story, "the washington post" doing a story saying in 1965, mitt romney apparently pushed a guy down and cut his hair. you would ask yourself, what does this have to do with the mitt romney of 2012? they waited a long time to run that story. they waited until he was the nominee of the party to run that story. he was really the only plausible republican candidate that didn't get that kind of an attack until that late in the race. in collusion, in our book, we
talk about how every republican candidate who rose to the top of the polls got hit with an investigative journalism thing. jeb bush had the painted rock. rick santorum's wife lived with an abortionist. they hit each one with that kind of thing. i think it is quite likely we will get all sort of stories from the seemy underbelly of trumpland. >> isn't that the role of the media? they let the potential voter know this is the other side, these are some things that are and could be controversial for you? >> this is where the pick and choose and the liberal bias comes in. these are not the stories they are going to want to do about the clintons. they are not going to do the seamy underbelly of, how is bill clinton behaving now? it is not a story they are going to be out there searching out to find. what hillary clinton did with the rose law firm records in
1993 to them is not as interesting as what mitt romney did with the scissors in 1965. it is that whole question of the democrats get a different standard on their personal behavior. they get a different standard on their scandals and their policy positions, we think, that the republicans get. just for example, in michele bachmann's case, they sent a hidden camera into her husband's clin can, a gay activist group sent a hidden camera. abc did a big story. now, the same people don't want to cover a hidden camera inside planned parenthood. they have a dramatic double standard in what they decide the news should be. >> is it because republicans run on morals is this. >> sure, that is part of it. mrs. clinton is running on feminism. obviously, the behavior of the democrats towards women is just as much of a morals issue in a different way. certainly, the whole idea that the democrats are going to run
on populism, they are for the little guys and the clintons massive wealth building and massive speaking fees, these are the kind of stories that newspapers are doing them but the networks have not been that interested in those stories at this point or just that whole angle. obviously, i would suspect the republicans are going to use that against mrs. clinton to say, you are a populous. how much money do you have? specially if you have a jeb bush or donald trump. the big issue comparing wealth. >> welcome, carol, to the conversation, a republican from ohio. you are on the air with tim graham. >> caller: thank you very much. my question is, has any news reporters looked into the possibility of hillary clinton's campaign people being behind the black lives matter?
there has been two disruptions of bernie sanders rallies, i understand. i have no facts or proof but i think hillary clinton's people are behind it because he is gaining on her. he has more people that turn out for his rallies than she does. i firmly believe that her people are behind the black lives matters disruptions, bernie sanders rallies. what do you think about that? thank you. >> obviously, i suppose what we need now to disprove that is a black lives matter protest at a hillary clinton event. the question is whether the disciplined clinton campaign would allow such a thing. look, i still think, yes, the black lives matter movement, first of all, that's a very insulting hashtag. then, when you say all lives matter, they get very upset.
i think it does represent a problem for the democrats if they are going to run on the idea that, elect us president, we think the cops are all murderers. that, on some level, is not going to play. i think even when you look at coverage of ferguson this weekend, for example, in our coverage looking at npr this weekend, it is this innocent michael brown shot by police. there is no question of let's look at the actual evidence that he reached for the gun. the cop reached inside the car. those sorts of, again, they decide it is a racist, that kind of truths a racist narrative, therefore, we are going to ignore it. then, you don't get news. rochester, michigan, dave, democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning. well, you know, tim, obviously, you have a point of view and you talk about scandals and you have a point of view and may i point out first that your comparison of what happened to bush in 2007 and 2008 as compared to obama is
just off skew. back then, we had record home for closures, record job loss, a six-year war that was supposed to last six months. you wonder why bush wasn't taking heat in a stock market that was falling? these scandals of obama, they just don't seem to compare to what was happening then. my last point is with bernie sanders, why isn't this so-called liberal media covering bernie sanders? the media seems to not be covering him at all. >> we'll take both those points, dave. >> not true, bernie sanders is getting covered. i think, again, they are trying to figure out whether he represents a real threat to mrs. clinton and, again, they always have this nervousness about, can she do it? they have this nervousness about bill in 1992. can he do it?
once the media gets the idea they can do it, all these stories are stories they really don't want to do. bernie sanders has gotten a lot of coverage. again, nobody is going to ask the question, really like, oh, so the democratic party is a socialist party? these people all run around and say the republicans are extreme. well, the democrats seem a little extreme if they are running a self-described socialist as the phenomenon who is detracting all the attention and building large crowds? doesn't that say something about perhaps the democrats are out of touch. this is a capitalist country last we checked. >> on our lined for independents, howard in alabama. good morning to you, howard. >> caller: good morning. the question i have is about the media should do some research on the good old boy concept in washington between the republicans and the democrats. it don't make any difference how much wrongdoing you do, how many mistakes they make or whether it
is negligence like hillary in benghazi. they just seuss thuse them for points. they never file any charges. in the irs, there are no charges filed there or no charges filed against hillary. as far as trump, if you read almost any book on how to be successful, it tells you do not associate with failures, associate with successful people and they will help you become successful. trump is the most successful one of the bunch that's running. god bless him for exercising his right for free speech. >> okay, howard. tim graham. >> here, again, the question i wanted as a critic in that question was, the bankruptcies. again, the populous answered this question in a way that basically said, yeah, i use the bankruptcy laws to my advantage, doesn't everybody? no.
the answer is, most americans don't do $1 billion bankruptcies. so that's where you do wonder. i think again the assessment of his business record is going to be something that we'll get more of in the weeks to come. >> to find out more from tim graham and others at media research center, you can go to mrc.org or newsbusters.org and follow tim graham on twitter at news busters. thank you very much for your time. appreciate it. >> thank you, greta. coming up at noon on c-span, robert ford, a former u.s. ambassador to syria, he will talk about the potential effect of the iran nuclear agreement on iran's status and other middle eastern countries. on cspan2 at ten minutes past noon, eastern time, a look at boko haram and recent suicide bombings in cameroon and what's been used to stop the group active in several african countries and has ties to isis. live again at 12:10 p.m. eastern on cspan2.
tonight at 8:00 on c-span, the reverend al sharpton, education secretary, arn in i duncan and civil rights activist at the national urban league annual conference in ft. lauderdale, florida. here is attorney, benjamin crump. >> they are passing all kind of laws to disenfranchise our communities, the souls to the pol polls, to put police officers at the voting polls and stop us from voting. what we are focused on, we're going to challenge them. we are not concerned about our corporate sponsorship or status. the fundamental right in america is your right to vote and vote for the prosecutor, vote for the judge. we get confused sometimes with the presidential vote and think that's the most important vote.
man, you go down to that courthouse. the most important vote in many instances is that d.a. he is going to decide whether your child go to judge or not. if the prosecutor, billy come to court and june bug go to court. billy get to go home with his parents. junebug going to get fingerprinted and handcuffed. that's all on the prosecutor. you tell me what's more important to vote for, the prosecutor or the president. you talking about jury duty. the vote and jury duty, just one person being in that back room. in florida, we got six. in st. louis, they have 12 but one african-american who has the courage to say, i'm going to be on this jury. i'm going to answer every question appropriately and i'm going to be fair and i'm going to go back in that room and i'm going to decide the fate of this young black person today makes all the difference in the world, because your vote really do
count when you on jury duty. >> the national urban league conference including discussions on african-americans killed by police, the 2016 election and the voting rights act and education. tonight at 8:00 p.m., eastern time. with the senate in its august break, we'll feature book tv programming weeknights in prime time on cspan2, starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern and at the end of the summer, look for two book tv special programs. on saturday, september 5th, live from our nation's capital for the 15th annual book festival followed on sunday with our live, in-depth program with former second lady and senior fellow at the american enterprise institute, lynn cheney. book tv on cspan2. television for serious readers. >> more now from today's
washington journal on media coverage of campaign 2016. >> and we are back this morning continuing our conversation on media and the campaign 2016, how it is being covered as well as public policy debates here in washington. joining us from new york this morning is eric bullard, senior fellow for media matters. mr. bullard, let's get your reaction to the fox news debate last week. was it fair? were the questions fair? >> well, i thought it was a misrepresentation of what fox is the other 364 days of the year. i think naturally they asked tough questions, it would be a pretty boring debate if they just got together and asked everybody how great they were. they asked questions that i thought were to be expected of a presidential campaign. i think where the media might have misread it, oh, fox was up to the challenge, fox is mainstream, fox is doing great journalist. at media matters, we would ask
people to watch fox the other 364 days of the year, including megyn kelly and chris wallace. that was my take, our take on the debate. kind of a low bar. fox asks interesting questions. you are supposed to. that's what you get paid for. >> did they ask the right questions? >> generally, i didn't hear anything about climate change or other issues you would almost guarantee would come up in a debate. that was the first debate jv debate. the first line of questioning, why are you so unpopular, why are you that was the j.d. debate. why are you so unpopular? why are you here? they finally got into more sub san stiff questions. didn't hear a lot about the economy and climate change. they do have six or seven
debates, i assume they will get to topics like that that are of pressing interest. >> we were talking to tim graham of media interest research center and he said, at least the candidates on the republican side are answering questions from the media. where is hillary clinton, he asked, taking tough questions? >> that's certainly been a talking point all through the winter and spring. hillary won't talk to the press and then she does. she pretty regularly takes local questions now, the dnc announced half a dozen debates that start next october. i think that medium is kind of evaporated. she is taking questions. bernie sanders is taking questions. if you just look at the politics of it, often, if you're in the front, you don't rush out to get a lot of media attention for better or for worse. these republicans, people like chris christie and ted cruz are desperate for press attention. they are going to go out there.
mitt romney, during the 2012 campaign, during the height of the primary season, didn't take questions for 35 days. we didn't really see this sort of constant, media attention? when is mitt going to take a question. i understand the press wants questions answered. i think there is a slight double standard in terms of hillary clinton, though. >> eric boehlert, i'll have you respond about what tim graham said about media matters. that it was something started by hillary clinton. are you an arm of the hillary clinton campaign? >> no. we have been doing this ten years. 2004 when we started. hillary was a senator and john kerry was running for president. media matters was instumtle in debunking for truth. i love this con spear torey talk. if you air progressive and you stand up to the media and do
fact checking and push back on misinformation, you are sort of immediately part of this conspiracy. conservatives have been doing this for 40 years. nobody thinks they are attached to a tam pain or anything like that. democrats and progressives got tired of being run over by the press. poor al gore, the washington press essentially declared war on his candidacy. he didn't have any kind of infrastructure to fight back. now, there is an infrastructure for misinformation, holding people accountable, posting video and transcripts. that's what we have been doing. >> where is coverage in this campaign missing, in your opinion? >> going back to my comments about the questions in the debate, to say there is too much horse races would be the understatement. we don't really see policy
debate, policy agenda. i know you were talking about bernie sanders coverage. to me, most of the bernie sanders kofrm is, how does he effect hillary. what does hillary have to do about bernie sanders? instead of treating bernie sanders as bern ner sanders. he is an incredibly bright veteran legislature with interesting ideas. why not just cover bernie sanders? why does everything have to be in the context of a horse race. on the hillary clinton side, i'm not the first to suggest that there is something sort of going on between the press and hillary clinton. the press essentially can't stop writing about it's relationship with hillary clinton, very an tag gone is stick. i think it would be great if the press kind of dropped the feud coverage and just sort of covered what she is saying, what kind of president would she be? what agenda is she pushing,
things like that? i think the signal early on that we were going to see a lot of pointless coverage was when she ordered lunch at chipotle and that was essentially a news story for three or four days. that doesn't need to be a news story for three or four days. >> howard up first in california. a republican. good morning, howard. you are on the air. >> caller: well, good morning. good morning, sir you. greta, i never miss the chance to tell you how great a job you are doing. i can remember a few years ago, you started out like all, a bit on the nervous side but you are a sparkplug. you handle the politics of either side so well. always there and always with a smile. thank you you so much for your effort. i really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> caller: i know c-span, those that listen to it like i do.
i'm a political junkie. let me get to your guest. he spoke of the way fox news handles the day 364 days out of the year. maybe one day he got it right. fox got it right when the debate was going on on that one day. i have two questions for him. how would you describe msnbc's news broadcast as compared to fox? contentwise? the second question is, you know, the story that really sticks out in my mind with secretary clinton, the story that's never been answered yet. i'm sure it will before the election. that is, how she seems to think she can have her own service in
her private home in the state of new york. >> howard, we'll take those. >> the first question, a lot of people always like to say, well, msnbc is the liberal version of fox news. i think there is a lot of differences. msnbc is morning shows, hosted by a former republican congressman. i don't see any former democratic congressman hosting shows on fox. more importantly, fox news is essentially taken over the republican party. again, look at the debates. they were going -- they -- roger als, basically, the night before, went over the polling and decided who was going to be invited to the debate, the main debate and who was going to be invited to the second debate? media matters has chronicled for years how essentially, the republican party has handed over its branded and marketing to fox news. last month, media matters just calculated, this he devoted 40
hours of programs just interviewing republican candidates. msnbc does not run the democratic party. msnbc does not essentially24/7 talking points. and so that's one key way. the server story is interesting. you know, when the state department decided they were going to have this review and they wanted to get all the e-mails from former secretaries of state, they contacted hillary clinton. she said i had these private e-mails. i'll go through, i'll hand over 30,000. 30,000 are private, i'm going to hang on to those. they also contacted former secretary of state colin powell and he said i had a private e-mail, they're all gone. so again, there seems to be something of a double standard. hillary clinton has done what her predecessor did except she handed over tens of thousands of
e-mails. >> i want to get reaction to what new jersey governor chris christie said. he was asked about the -- >> i have attention on hillary clinton this week and on the referral of her e-mail scandal to the fbi to look into that. did you see as much coverage of that as we did about a possible indictment of chris christie for the bridgegate matter, which did not come to fruition? >> i'm waiting for the nightly specials on other news networks. i'm waiting for the breathless front page stories of "the new york times" but they don't back off every time hillary clinton yells at them. the fact is that we know it's completely biased, unfair, disparate treatment. these should be looked into and there should be coverage of it. there was completely unfair, overblown biased coverage of what happened with me and with
her they give her a pass. >> eric boehlert, your reaction. >> that's an interesting four months' worth of a pass. you know, if chris christie wants to go to nexus and find out how many articles and tv segments have been done about the e-mails, i'm sure he would find a pile. it's interesting sort of -- the e-mails to hillary clinton what benghazi is to obama in terms of a news event, in terms of a conservative conspiracy. benghazi was going to take down the obama administration, was going to show him for the traitor that he was. of course nothing even remotely close to that ever came true. years and years of investigation. same with the e-mails. this is going to peel away. we're going to finally see the true character of hillary clinton. she's a criminal, she's a phony. again, we haven't seen anything like that. megyn kelly making a casual referral to a criminal indictment that might be pending against hillary clinton, there's
no such thing. this is -- the fbi is following the law. it's going to follow up questions. people in the information services had about the security. that was already determined. that wasn't even news. but you turn on fox news and she might be indicted. so chris christie thinks the press has gone easy on hillary clinton, he kind of hasn't been paying attention for the last seven months. >> kevin is next in iowa, democrat. hi, kevin. >> hi. thanks for taking my call, greta. eric, thanks for media matters and stuff for your service. i do watch fox news as a democrat and i kind of laugh at the media research center when they go on air. mr. graham, he kind of didn't say -- when romney was on there in 2011, fox news went after him
after an interview with brett baier i believe. i believe after the interview mitt romney i believe was complaining or wasn't too happy with the interview. you know, can you kind of comment on that, could you, please? >> i do remember, i just happened to be doing some research recently and came upon it. mitt had been out of the limelight for a while. he decided to have a sitdown interview. i think bret baier went out to meet with him. mitt was very rusty. bret asked him some questions about his policy. romney was facing battles of flip-flop. he was asked about his health care plan in massachusetts and romney got very flustered and said this is a very unusual interview and things like that. but yeah, i remember that. this was also the fox news that 12 months later assured its readers that mitt romney was going to win in a land slide, as you famously remember karl rove
on election night. poor karl trying to do the math on ohio. so mitt romney did have that somewhat uncomfortable interview with fox in 2011. by 2012 fox news was essentially the marketing arm of the romney campaign. >> ohio is next. bonnie, an independent. what's the name of your town, bonnie? >> willoughby. >> hi. the media almost had me convinced to vote for trump in the primaries, although i can't because i'm an independent and they don't allow you as an independent. the coverage was look how successful he is in business. i'm thinking, wait a minute, didn't he go bankrupt? sure enough during the debates they said oh yeah, four times that he went bankrupt. and he didn't seem to care that he went bankrupt using the laws of the land. but the media isn't emphasizing
other people like kasich, who had his own private business, did not go bankrupt. and in ohio he was -- he is governing in a republican manner but also in a non-republican manner. he cares with all the people. because the medicaid that he accepted from the government. so i'm just saying that the media is really swaying people when it comes to trump. it's sad that people are buying into the trump who doesn't really care about the country, he cares about himself. >> bonnie, can i ask you before you go real quickly, what did you make of the governor's answer on gay marriage? because that's getting a headline today in "the washington times" that governor kasich reveals changes of gop views with gays. >> again, he is not strictly republican. he is a compassionate person. sure, if you know somebody who's gay, you're going to love that person. i personally believe in the traditional marriage.
i am not a pro-gay person. but i can understand if somebody is gay and you love that person, you're not going to change your love. you might change your attitude towards them, but you're not going to change your love for that person. >> sorry, bonnie. i thought you were finished. eric boehlert, what do you make of what bonnie had to say? >> well, the points about trump are interesting. the trump coverage has been all over the place. remember the dominant theme six weeks ago from the pundit class was he was a fad. we probably shouldn't even cover his campaign. no one is going to take him seriously. it took them until about five days ago when he was polling about 30% in the republican polls to say, oh, maybe we should cover seriously, i think the beltway press sort of lost touch with the republican base and how far to the right. and frankly how radical to the right the voters, a lot of those voters have become. so a dominant theme was, you know, trump is a fad and now
they have to kind of recalibrate. i think there will be more -- hopefully more substantive, again, that seems to be looking, coverage of what he thinks, what kind of president he would be, and certainly his business background. it's a little tough. he doesn't really seem to indicate what kind of president he would be. but again, i think most of the trump coverage has been sort of select coverage, much the way they cover hillary clinton. they sort of treat her as a celebrity. hopefully we'll get beyond the celebrity coverage with trump and get sort of down to basic, you know, campaign coverage. >> if joe biden jumps into the race, eric boehlert, what do you think the coverage will be -- what will it be like of him? bloomberg's john heilemann observed in a caolumn the irresistible urge of a father wanting to fulfill his son's
deathbed wish -- >> maybe, i don't know. i can't remember any time -- well, again, i don't think democrats as a rule get gushing coverage on the campaign trail. again, just thinking of what hillary has gone through. look, i'm not sure about the biden story. that was floated by maureen dowd in a column with an anonymous source and the rest of "the new york times" treated the anonymous source in the opinion column as news and have jumped all over it. we've seen absolutely nothing in the last eight days to suggest any of that will happen. if he got in, it would be more bad news for hillary clinton, meaning the campaign coverage would be awful for her. look, the clinton rule is kind of all news is bad news for hillary clinton. so it would be great for the press. you know, they -- you know, they were kind of hysterical that hillary might get a coronation and somebody might not run. now bernie sanders is running, but the press hasn't really warmed up to bernie sanders in
part because he runs positive campaigns. he won't go out and call hillary clinton a liar. he doesn't really talk about the e-mails. that's not of interest to him. i don't think joe biden would either, but they want a horse race. they're desperate for a horse race. they would love joe biden in the race. but again, it's been eight days since that kind of weird maureen dowd column and there's absolutely been nothing to suggest any of it is going to happen. >> for those that missed it earlier, "the washington times" front page, their coverage of this story with the headline "two failed presidential bids could haunt joe biden." kathy in long branch, new jersey, a democrat. good morning. >> thank you. that's exactly how it's said. thank you. i just want to say this quickly. i like lincoln chafee and jim webb. we don't need another clinton or another bush. my other comment is about the governor in this state. we used to have a good state here in new jersey. i'm telling you, everybody i know can't stomach chris
christie. and i'm proud to say i've never voted for him and, no, i never watch fox news, ever. msnbc, cnn now and then, new jersey news and c-span. and comedy channel. what the heck. where is jon stewart? boy, that made me sad. and bruce springsteen performed for him. anyway, all that being said, we're democrats, my husband and i. >> all right, kathy. we'll move on to max in ft. lauderdale, florida. did you want to say something, eric? >> i want to talk about chris christie just a little bit. i think it's ironic. if you look at the d.c. press, two or three years ago they peered over the landscape and plucked chris christie out of new jersey and said this guy is going to be a superstar. we love it when he yells at teachers. we love it when he screams at people. this guy is what america needs. they couldn't have been -- the d.c. press couldn't have been more wrong. he is now polling at 30% in new
jersey. he has lost 35 points in his approval rating in under two years. he will likely leave office with approval ratings in the low 20s or the high teens. and this is who the d.c. press announced was authentic and was in touch with the american voters. it's kind of comical. >> eric boehlert, beyond politics and the white house coverage, what do you make of how the media is covering the public policy debates that are taking place behind us here in washington at the capitol? >> it's kinds of depressing. i mean media matters has written extensively, again, the topic of climate change just comes up over and over. the lack of coverage, the lack of serious coverage, economic news, the lack of serious coverage. look, you know, the problem with the press, particularly with the obama administration, they have not come to grips with the radical obstructionism of this republican party. you talk about the issues being debated in washington. essentially there are none. i mean the federal government
sort of ceased to exist years ago in terms of legislation being crafted, people debating, bills being passed. you know, the republican party on obama's inauguration day decided we are going to try to stop everything. and the press for years blamed obama. why can't he figure out mitch mcconnell? why can't he get republicans to come across to his side? he couldn't figure it out because they had decided they weren't going to do it, period. so i think it's unfortunate what's happened. there are no -- there are few, if any, policy debates anymore. and i think the press has kind of given republicans a pass. they adopted this radical, radical obstructionism, unlike anything we've ever seen. look, george bush was essentially an appointed president by the supreme court. the first thing democrats did was help him pass no child left behind. ted kennedy passed that bill for the new president. we've never seen anything like that in terms of a helping hand.
and i think the press has missed that story for going on seven years. >> max is next in ft. lauderdale, florida, independent. you're on the air with eric boehlert, senior fellow at media matters. go ahead. >> yes, i'm still here. i want to say thank you to c-span. i appreciate the fact that you have mr. boehlert on after mr. graham. i felt like throwing my shoe at the television screen after listening to that predecessors but this goes to show that you give both sides of the story. my comment for mr. boehlert and it's what prompted me to call in when mr. graham was on. there was a lady called in, brought up the fact that this black lives matter movement has been giving bernie sanders a great deal of trouble. and this woman, basically her premise was she had no proof, she had no evidence, she had never seen anything to say otherwise, but she came up with
i think hillary clinton is promoting this. and mr. graham, instead of saying to her this is crazy to even be talking this way, he used that as a way of just going off on hillary clinton. this is the problem with these crazy right-wingers and their press defenders, guys like tim graham that keeps spouting left-wing press, left-wing press when it doesn't exist. they operate on belief rather than facts. and no matter how silly someone comes up with things, they'll pick it up and run with it. >> max, i believe she was a bernie sanders supporter, right? >> no, i thought she -- i thought she was a conservative. a republican. >> yeah. i think so. but go ahead. we got your larger point. >> my point was out of nowhere she comes up with hillary clinton is the one causing this, sending these guys after bernie
sanders, and this graham freak ran -- picked it up and ran with it instead of shutting it and saying that's absolutely asinine. >> all right, eric boehlert. >> well, the clintons are a magnet for conspiracy, particularly among the right-wing media. again, i made casual reference to the clinton rules. there are rules that apply to the clintons that don't apply to other politicians. one of them is every fantastic claim should be treated as true until proven otherwise. i'm not sure this claim in particular is going to be treated as true by the d.c. press. it will certainly be treated as true by rush limbaugh and talk radio. i would not be surprised if that sort of conspiracy is a topic of conversation all week. but again, they are a magnet for kind of wild conspiracies and always assuming the rest. >> cape coral, florida, bob, a republican. >> hey, how are you guys? thank you for the great format.
i haven't watched in a couple of years. i moved to florida two winters ago to take care of my disabled siblings. and it's been tough, but florida has been nice. it's hot, but -- hello? >> we're listening to you, bob. you moved to florida. >> well, my issue -- i think trump is a great catalyst for the problem plaguing our nation. my whole family has been plunged into a -- everyone in my family is on social services, from the north to the south. everyone that i know is suffering and struggling. and i think that trump is right about we're being pitted against third world immigrants in our economy. i think at some point we have to come together and realize that this is a travesty. and i think that it's time for the bush and clinton era to end. i think that's what's really being said here. the media is really way off base. they haven't got caught up with the people.
the people will let everything, you know -- kasich was good. i'm a gay american, by the way, and i'm republican. kasich is a great guy. i hope that him or elizabeth warren come out ahead of all of these career criminals in washington. god bless you. thank you. >> eric boehlert, any thoughts? >> well, i think on the trump and the immigration, you know, i think the people will speak and will decide. he seems to be in the minority in terms of this very harsh, hateful rhetoric. i think the opinions in terms of immigration continue to change and they're changing away from where trump is trying to pit people against each other, i think. >> john is next, richmond, virginia, independent caller. >> hi. i'd like to point out the guy from florida, the other independent, actually hit upon a
lot of what i was going to say, but i'd like to first thank c-span because if you're going to turn on cable for news and turn to fox or cnn or msnbc, number one you're lying to yourself and begging to be lied to because they are not news, they are 99% opinion. and when you're seeking opinion instead of facts, that's how you get like the lady from ohio who called and said i have no basis for this, but i know this is fact because when people will lie to themselves and seek to be lied to, that's what you get. and i'd like to point out that hillary clinton is probably the most -- candidate in american history. the media has been hounding her and hounding bill clinton since 1992. he smoked a joint in college. they made a little money on the house sale. every single thing -- they can't have something for dinner
without the media scrutinizing what it was, literally. and i think right-wingers are just seeking to be victimized by the media. they say, oh, well, the media is not covering this or the media is not covering that. like benghazi, first it was obama didn't call it terrorism. well, he did. well, four americans died in ben gauzy. well, yeah, they did, but more americans died in the anthrax attacks in 2001 and that was never even called a terrorist attack. in fact in 2006 george bush proudly proclaimed there had been no more terrorist attacks on american soil after 9/11, despite five americans dying in the anthrax attack. and i think that republicans play victim to the media, trying to force the media into covering stories that just don't even exist. >> okay, john. mr. boehlert. >> yeah, he makes a lot of good points. again, i think the clintons have
an unusual relationship with the press. as he says, they have been the topic of endless skrocrutiny, m so than any other political couple. and yet instead of coming to the conclusion that they have been vetted or this is their career or they have been extremely successful or this is their agenda, they just seem to become continually distracted and convinced they're going to -- you know, there's something there that's going to take them down. again, i just wish they would cover the clintons, and specifically hillary clinton, fairly. you know, no one is asking for any breaks. just cover her as the democratic front runner. you know, politico, fox, both have written articles about how the political press, their goal is to take down hillary clinton. i think that's -- and that statement didn't really create any kind of uproar or pushpabac.
that's an extraordinary place to be, to have the campaign press dedicated to taking down the democratic front runner. we don't see articles or tv discussions about how the press can't stand scott walker or how they're trying to take down jeb bush. this is a uniquely democratic phenomen phenomenon. just by definition, it's not fair. so that's what people are looking for, is a little fairness here. >> eric boehlert, does hillary clinton contribute to this coverage when she has something like a separate e-mail system set up and doesn't have the same -- wasn't giving the state department access to those e-mails so that they could keep them? does she contribute to it with a lack of transparency and not having sitdowns with media doing interviews and taking the tough questions? how do you respond to that? >> well, i understand the general point. look, the e-mail story was a
story. there's no question. that was back in march. but now it's sort of been incorporated by republicans into the benghazi committee. and so now we have the benghazi committee morphing into a hillary e-mail committee and we have them leaking information to the press. let's talk about the biggest mistake, the biggest blunder, the biggest embarrassment of this campaign season. even though it wasn't a campaign article per se, it was "the new york times" going front page with the false accusation of hillary being the target of a criminal investigation and they had to walk it back even before people picked it up -- you know, they posted it online thursday night. they had to walk it back before friday morning. nothing -- almost nothing in that article turned out to be accurate. and i think it was based on, you know, this fevered attempt to try to take down hillary clinton. that article was obviously rushed in.
they didn't have good sources. they never called any democrats to try to get a comment. so i think the e-mail story is a story, absolutely, cover it. that was four months ago, i think now. i think when "the new york times" is still desperately trying to turn it into a criminal investigation july going into august, that's not really in proportion to the story and, obviously, they embarrassed themselves hugely. carl bernstein called it a travesty, an institutional failure that you just don't see very often. and again, it's sort of this breathless pursuit of the clintons. that's sort of the baseline for so much of this campaign coverage. >> we'll go up to rochester, new york. robert is next, a democrat. >> hello. >> good morning, robert, go ahead. >> yes. why isn't there any coverage of the jonathan pollard, the israeli spy in the news? >> and why do you ask that? there was a headline recently about him getting out of prison
around november. >> yes, but there's nothing -- that's the only -- that's the only coverage there was on any news channel. >> okay. >> and why -- why is it that he's given a pass? why is israel always given a pass when it comes to the news? >> okay. eric boehlert, do you have any thoughts on that? do you think there's a bias there? >> i don't know about bias. i was surprised it didn't get more headlines. the debate about him being released has gone on for decades, i think. i think what happened, it became -- it got overshadowed from the larger debate about the iran nuclear agreement. it certainly got overshadowed by trump mania and lots of other things. but i've seen bigger headlines when it was just being debated, the fact that he was being released. i think probably it was undercovered a little bit. >> okay. los gatos, california, molly, republican. good morning. >> good morning.
i am looking forward to what this gentleman is to see happen in the total and complete repudiation of the progressives in america and his channel, and i wish him luck with his eight viewers. >> what are you talking about, molly? we're talking with media matters, the watchdog group and their website. media matters.org. she's not there anymore. brian in new york, independent. hi, brian. you're on the air. >> hi, how are you? >> doing well, sir. question or comment? >> yeah. i had a comment. i've been listening to quite a few callers and unfortunately donald trump speak about how america is not great anymore and he's going to restore things. by any statistical analysis, that just doesn't make sense. we're a $16.5 trillion economy, the capital system works well here. it sounds to me that the people who aren't doing well in this country, they don't understand
how capitalism works. now, frankly i'm a bernie sanders supporter, but i understand how the system works. i understand that it's inherently unfair. they're searching for a demagogue, someone to solve problems and there seems to be a huge disconnect in terms of the average american understanding what the real problems are in this country. that it's institutional. so i was wondering what you guys thought about that. >> well, i think you hit on a point in terms of -- you listen to the conservative media. you know, the obama administration has been a disaster, right? the economy is awful. we don't have a future. and that's -- at media matters we talk about the bubble, life inside the fox news bubble, life inside the echo chamber. within the echo chamber, america is truly on its last legs. look, 30%, 40% of republicans still think obama wasn't born in america. and that's what led to their heartbreak on election night
when they thought mitt romney was going to win in a landslide because pundit after pundit told them mitt romney was going to win in a landslide and fox news and rush limbaugh had just spent four years documenting how obama was supposedly this monster and traitor. well, none of that is accurate. and so demagoguery i think is a good word. i think a lot of the conservative media breeds this desire to find someone like trump. in a weird way kind of talk down america, which is supposed to run counter of the conservative values that is supposed to drive the republican party. >> l.p. is next in meadeville, pennsylvania, a democrat. you are on the air with eric boehlert. go ahead. >> yes, ma'am, thanks for taking my call. i was calling, the unfairness, with trump it's unfair i feel
because they jumped right on him about what he said about women and the next thing is that i think is unfair about hillary because bush is the one that shot -- they talk about hillary is the one getting people killed. you've got to start at the beginning. i was in the service myself so you can't just put it on hillary. go to the end of a horse race, you've got to start at the beginning. >> okay. eric boehlert? >> well, again, i think the trump coverage is -- has been a god send for the press but also very problematic. you know, it looked like it was going to be a rather dull summer in terms of the campaigns. he delivered this god send of a story, but he's provided them challenges, again, because they
initially said he's not important. we're not going to pay attention to him. and now he's the republican front runner. so they have to start looking at the substance. i think they have to start taking a closer look at some of the other candidates. again, i talk about the hillary clinton coverage. we've seen time and again if her favorables go down a few points, that's news for several days. there was an nbc poll yesterday that had jeb bush falling to sixth place. didn't really get much news coverage from what i saw. trump has eviscerated a couple of the republican candidates. but we see a lot of shoulder shr shruging i think. >> our last call is a democrat, ben in texas. good morning to you. >> good morning. >> go ahead, sir, with your question or comment. >> my comment is i think the republican party, what their
objective is, is to get rid of donald trump. that's why megyn kelly and chris wallace went at him so hard. they want to get rid of him because they're afraid of him. >> okay. eric boehlert, what do you think the agenda was for fox news? >> i don't know. fox has a very curious relationship with trump. they obviously promoted him for months. media matters research shows that he was the most -- he got the most air time, two months in a row, i think, certainly in july. the interviews whenever he was on were essentially fawning interviews. they loved the trump story. some of the hosts, you know, personally vouched for him, said this is our guy. but then i don't know, is he wreaking havoc on the republican party? are they now afraid of him? is roger ailes trying to take him down? no one knows. our first caller said isn't msnbc just like fox but left not right. no. there is no cable channel
running the democratic party the way fox news is running the republican party, the way they created the trump candidacy. you go back to 2011, they joined forces with donald trump to launch, you know, the birther charade for several months. they gave him a national platform. the republican party in 2011 at that point could have said this is so out of bounds, we want nothing to do with donald trump. he doesn't reflect the republican party. but they went all in because fox led. so the point is there is no off switch, right? they have created this kind of chaotic campaign and now it seems to be beyond their control. the republican party seems to be paying a very steep price. but once you start this demagoguery it's hard to turn it off. now what's fox going to do? i don't know. but again, fox is running the republican party. >> for more on how the media is covering this campaign, you can go to media matters website, that's mediamatters.org and following them on twitter.
eric boehlert, thank you for your time this morning. appreciate it, sir. >> my pleasure, thanks. starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern, programs looking at women in the courts, politics and the military. today supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg and former texas state senator wendy davis. coming up today on c-span, a hearing on the epa's pending proposal to revise existing air quality standards for ground level ozone. the epa proposed the rule last november. it's expected to finalize the rule by october 1st. revising the current parts per billion standard. we'll have the hearing from june at 3:00 p.m. eastern time. join us for our c-span cities tour visiting literary and historic sites across the country as we hear from local historians, authors and civic leaders. this month with congress on summer recess, the city's tour is on c-span every day at 6:00 p.m. today lincoln, nebraska, where we'll look at the design of the state capitol, the past and
present of the first peoples of the plains, and we'll talk with nebraska governor pete ricketts. that starts at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> now more of today's washington journal and our your money segment looking at the cost of internet coverage in rural areas. >> and we are back. our weekly your money series continues. joining us now is tony romm, senior technology reporter with politico to talk about how your taxpayer dollars are being spent on broadband access in rural communities. here's the story. wired to fail, how a little known agency mishandled several billion dollars of stimulus money trying to expand broadband coverage to rural communities. let's begin with the rural utilities service. what is it? >> it's a very little known agency housed within the sprawling u.s. department of agriculture. it dates back to the new deal.
fdr wanted to wire homes and communities and farmland with electricity. many of these areas didn't have power. they weren't able to turn on the lights that way. private companies simply didn't want to spend the money to bring electricity to these towns. fast forward many decades later and the agency with a new name and a new mission was working in broadband but as the record and data shows, rural utility service has not done a good job in managing its investments and ensuring that the towns and communities that are on the wrong side of the digital divide actually have the better broadband service that you and i have here in washington, d.c. >> do the goals of broadband access in rural communities match up with the goal -- the original mission of the rus? >> that's the question that folks and federal watch dogs have been asking many years now. you have to look back at the clinton administration. that's really when rus began to do its work in broadband. over the years it picked up an even bigger broadband portfolio. with the story we focused on, we
looked at the 2009 federal stimulus that passed in the shadow of the great recession. as part of that panel, the rural utility service was given $3.5 billion, over the objections of some in the white house and on capitol hill, to be begin to bring broadband access with loans and grants to communities across the country. that program was supposed to be finished by the end of september, 2015. all the money has to be awarded by the end of next month. but the agency isn't really on track to do so. hundreds of millions of dollars of that original program remain unspent. many of the projects that were supposed to have completed construction simply haven't done so and rus hasn't done the full accounting to figure out how many of the projects are on pace to finish work before the ending of the year. what it does is affirm that rus has struggled to manage its broadband responsibilities. which isn't to say there's not a need. there's a serious digital divide. there's a need to promote this broadband investment but this
agency has not done good work in making sure that happens. >> according to politico, jonathan adlestein who is at the rural utility service, here's a quote from him. these investments in broadband will connect nearly 7 million rural americans along with more than 360,000 businesses and more than 30,000 critical community institutions like schools, health care facilities and puck lick safety agencies to new or improved services. what went wrong? >> that certainly is not the number that rus expects to connect these days. jonathan was one of the earlier directors of the rural utility service. he has since left the agency. he was there in the period when the rus was writing its rules for the stimulus program. but because of the way it wrote the rules, a series of delays, problems with oversights and the fact that its responsibilities were just monumental for this tiny agency, rus is not going to wire anywhere close to the 7 million rural americans it once promised it would. for one thing, of the 297 projects it once approved, 40 of
them were cancelled before a single shovel broke dirt. that's hundreds of thousands of rural americans who simply weren't going to get broadband access from the get-go. on top of that, many of the awardees simply haven't posted the progress that they had once promised the agency. so we're no longer talking about 7 million rural americans, we're talking about maybe a few hundred thousand who might get access to this within the next five years. so the goal posts have essentially changed. but you can even rewind this even further. rus and that 7 million number was never accurate in the first place. those were the number of homes that they could theoretically pass so the goal posts have changed over the years, the deliverables have changed over the years, and what we're staring down is a key deadline where many of these projects aren't going to be built as they were proposed. >> we're talking about internet access across this country, specifically in rural areas. the rural utility service set up to provide that across the
country, originally set up for utilities, for electricity, now being evolved, expanded over the decades to now take on broadband. specifically the 2009 stimulus money, $3.5 billion. that's what we're talking about today. tony romm with the story for politico on how that money is being wasted. 300 approved projects have not drawn down full amounts of awarded money, according to tony romm's reporting and more than 40 approved projects never got started. projects supposed to be completed by this summer, june of 2015. >> sure. there are a couple of deadlines and they all shifted over the years. for one thing, they have 300 projects total. probably about half of them haven't drawn down their awards, which is still a concerning number on the part of the agency. after a series of reshufflings at the agency, the construction was supposed to be finished by the end of june and the money had to be spent by the end of september. it was set up that way so they could request the money after they had finished construction
and so forth. but the construction doesn't appear to have been done by the end of june. many of these projects are now racing to spend what cash remains. if they don't touch this money, this is the important part, they'll lose it. it gets returned to the treasury and hundreds of millions of dollars in very rare broadband aid isn't going to be spent in the communities that need it most. >> how much has been spent? >> we spent a couple billion but i'd say probably $277 million remains unspent as a result of the delays in this program. >> what's going on in rural america that makes it difficult to bring the internet to these areas? why were 40 projects cancelled before they even got started? >> it's very different to build internet in areas that simply don't have it. we're talking about laying fiber lines underground where the terrain is very difficult to dig. we're talking about hanging lines, fiber lines, you know, on poles where two-thirds of the year it might be so cold that the ice takes down the wires. in some of these places, we're not talking about millions of residents, we're talking about a
few hundred. so the costs of providing them service are very high and the price of that service once built is sometimes too high for consumers. there are lots of obstacles to building broadband in these rural communities. that's what's contributed to a staggering digital divide between rural and urban areas here in the united states. about half of americans who live in rural areas do not have high-speed broad bands and the agency most recently decided that would be 25 mega bits per second to download. in real people terms, maybe you can video conference seamlessly with your employees or skype with one of your friends. you maybe can't download the most onerous lessons for your distance learning programs that would allow you to complete those classes on time. it's a serious divide. and that's 22 million americans essentially that can't get the speeds that the fcc thinks is very critical for the next generation and the digital economy. so lots of obstacles there, lots of real problems caused by the
fact that companies haven't been able or have been unwilling to invest. and then you layer the rus on top of that. one of the programs supposed to fix the problem hasn't been effective doing so. >> what does it mean with competitiveness with other countries and the global economy? >> in the united states it means there are fewer providers in many of these locales. if you listen to public watchdog and free press, consumer advocacy organizations here in d.c., they tell you no competition means higher prices for consumers, less innovation and slower speed. when you're speaking globally it sometimes means businesses aren't willing to locate here. one of the places i visited for the story is lake county, minnesota. it's up in the northeast woods of the state. it's an old mining town. for a lot of folks, they go up there, they take these really high def photographs of lake superior, which is nearby, but then they go online and can't upload those photos without it taking two hours because their internet connections are so bad. lake county had received a $66
million award as a result of the rural utility service. that project has not really gone according to specification. it's not built. it's encountered many objections. it struggled with its rural regulator. and the project isn't fully built. as a result, folks are leaving that town. they're not setting up shop there. they are not moving up there. it's an aging community. and so when you talk about competitiveness, the real-life implications of that means businesses move sometimes, whether it's to a different part of the country or overseas. >> you have a chart in your story and you highlight lake county, minnesota, awarded $66.4 million. percent drawn 89%. what do you mean by that, percent drawn? >> that's the amount of the award it's touched so far. but that number obscures the fact that millions of dollars of that original award haven't been touched. that's millions of dollars that program needs in order to build out service to the roughly 16,000 residents located within lake county and some of the nearby areas that were part of that project. and that eventually hurts
taxpayers by the way if this project doesn't work out on the scale on which it was originally proposed. much of lake county's award is a government loan. government loans are made with taxpayer dollars. if the network doesn't get built and can't pay the government back, the taxpayers are on the hook for that. at the same time, lake county is seeking millions of additional dollars from the fcc. so all of this stuff mixes in. when you don't target the investments properly or keep track of them, communities ultimately end up getting hurt. >> dede wants to know does rural broadband coverage explain why taxes are half my phone bill? >> well, there are fees on your phone bill that help the fcc fund access in areas that don't have phone service or don't have broadband service. but those dollars are very essential because without them, carriers couldn't provide that access to rural americans who need it most. the fcc is working right now to retool that program to make it more fit for the digital age, but, you know, if you talk to
folks, democrats and republicans alike, what they tell you is universal service generally is very important to get rural americans the broadband that they need. >> james in collins, mississippi, independent. thanks for hanging on the line. go ahead. >> yes, good morning. >> good morning. >> i wanted to ask the young lady that's there also about this broadband stimulus. what's the difference between this stimulus money going to this particular organization pertaining to the presidency and the politicians that's running, this conversation is going to come up. and also to the young lady when you have other guests or other politicians on, i noticed that when i made -- i made a statement about all the money that's being sent to these other
countries to help stimulate their countries and i said, well, all the money that was going to help re-establish the car dealerships when they broke down, why i got a lot of feedback on the american people have been suffering, the middle class and lower class have been suffering through three administrations. why is it that they cannot give the american people a stimulus of at least $1 million or $500,000 for every american to not only help the business world but also help the middle class and the people that don't have any money. >> >> okay, james, i think we got your point. bailing out the big companies like general motors, et cetera, and not helping out the middle class. was this initiative aimed at the
middle class, lower income americans? >> this was aimed at rural america specifically. so to take a step back, the 2009 federal stimulus was about jump starting the economy. the$800 billion package that was advanced by congress in february of 2009 was incredibly controversial. a lot of republicans didn't like the idea of the government funding some of these public works projects but on the other hand really wanted their districts and states to take home a slice of the cash. the fight was more pronounced in broadband because democrats and republicans don't see eye to eye about the role in government in funding broadband projects, in funding broadband competition and using taxpayer dollars to do so. so we're talking about who this targeted. there were two broadband stimulus programs. the one we focus on in the story is rural america and that's making sure that rural americans, average everyday americans, their businesses, the local mom and pop shops have the access that we find in most major cities so it really was
about the average american. >> wired to fail is the story. eddie in massachusetts, hi, eddie. >> good morning. once you broke up at&t which gave you universal service in conjunction with the baby bells and utility companies, nobody wants to build a cable to small town, it's just not profitable. that's why you've got the problem now. especially with net neutrality, without the volume of some of these companies. they just can't handle it. thank you. >> sure. so two very important points there in telecom policy right now. the first is that it is very expensive to build out these networks as we talked about. there was a reason why lake county, minnesota, didn't have broadband access. when it's snowy all the time and super cold and folks can't even get out of their houses, it's even harder to hang fiber cables. one of the issues is that it kept freezing and cables would fall down. very expensive to provide service there. on the issue of net neutrality,
i think folks sdprae on whether that has an issue -- net neutrality is the idea that all internet traffic should be treated equally. so comcast says we're going to slow down your video. so folks say the fcc's new rules will hurt broadband investment. that's the argument on the part of the carriers but the obama administration strongly disagrees. >> we're talking with tony romm, senior technology reporter with politico about his story "wired to fail." how the government has not spent all of $3.5 billion of the stimulus money for putting the internet -- getting access to the internet in rural communities. donald in michigan, a democrat, you're up next, donald. >> yes. i've been curious for years now, remember back when the twin towers were attacked, the day before the attack at 9:10,
september 10th, donald rumsfeld held a press conference. at that press conference he let out the news that he cannot account for $2.3 trillion. has that money ever been found? >> tony romm, this is not an issue that you've covered. >> it certainly isn't one. i will say with 9/11, one of the big issues in telecom was the ability for firefighters and police officers to have access. a lot of the service was very unreliable on 9/11 and a lot of police officers and firefighters were unable to talk to each other. that was one of the impetuses of the stimulus. there was a very important telecom link to 9/11. >> are these emergency responders, first responders getting the bandwidth that they need? are they getting that part of the communications that they
need, the tools? is the government doing it? >> they're working at it. in 2012 -- >> spectrum is the word i was trying to think of. >> after more than a decade of asking for help from congress, finally lawmakers delivered in 2012 a network called first net. it's a project to build a nationwide wireless high-speedway for police officers and firefighters to communicate no matter where they are. so there isn't the jurisdictional issue that sometimes happens when a cop from one area goes to another. that's a multi-year process. that's not going to be for a very long time but we're finally starting to deal with some of those troubles. >> santa fe, new mexico, steve, independent caller. hi, steve. >> hi. thanks for taking the call. i really want to shift your focus to the 200 plus predominantly indian and eskimo villages in rural alaska, many of which are on the coast. as you know with global warming and the thawing of the arctic ocean, the world is shifting in
that direction in terms of national defense, resource development and shipping and transport. what has been the state of play of alaska and the rural areas of alaska, both for the present residents and for the future? >> that's a very good question. there are a lot of lawmakers who really want alaska to get more help from the federal government. senator beggich spent a lot of time pressing tom wheeler and others to provide greater aid to the state just given its geographic challenges. but you're absolutely right, there is a renewed focus here in d.c. on that. it's part of a conversation we're having over the reform of the universal service fund. that's the program that helps build out some of these technologies in the hardest to reach rural areas. >> in your investigation did you find that the failure to deliver to some of these rural areas broadband access was due to politics? politicians interfering and saying give this -- give more here to my area?
>> it happened because of politics. the program itself. and it sort of fell victim to politics. on one hand the troubles at rus had been well documented. for years and years inspectors general and the government accountability office had pointed out serious problems with this problem. in the days before the federal stimulus, the i.g. had found that hundreds of millions of dollars in rus loans had gone to communities that already had some level of broadband access, which was exactly the opposite of the program. but senator tom harkin and others, many from rural-mindinged states, harkin was from iowa, really pushed for rus to get this money anyway. so the program existed because of politics. many of the projects that got funded fell victim to politics as well. on one hand you had telecom companies fighting very hard against these investments. mediacom adamantly opposed what the government was doing and wrote a flurry of letters to members of congress who then launched investigations and held
hearings and dragged folks up there and so it became very overwhelmed with politics over the years. what's interesting is that in the years to follow once the stimulus was no longer as politically sexy of a topic, lawmakers have simply stopped holding some of those oversight hearings. >> tucson, arizona, barbara, you're next. >> hi. to reiterate about the various companies like at&t working against small towns, my hometown in kansas had a high-speed internet, they needed it to run their public utility. and when they wanted to extend that service throughout the town, they asked at&t if they would like to do this and they said that they couldn't recoup their money fast enough to do that and they tried to become a google city and the google city of course went to kansas city. and so once they started to go about it, they needed to do some
bonding to do it. and at&t and various legislators in topeka tried to stop that. and, you know, we are going to be a gig economy and we need a gig type -- which is ten times -- which is 100 times faster than the regular internet and ten times faster -- i mean and the new norm is only going to be ten times faster. and we need this, these small towns need this to not only run their hospitals, et cetera, but to create economy, you know. and i just wanted to make that comment. >> okay. barbara, take a look at the map. this map shows -- this is the percentage of county population with download speeds of 25 mega bits per second or greater. the brown sort of maroon areas
across the country, that's where it's 0% of the population has internet that fast. the gray areas and the real dark area of black is where it's 100%. so take a look at the map. you can see which states have that greater speeds, download speeds compared to the rural areas across the country that are looking at zero, zero download speeds of 25 megabits per second or greater and that's the standard that the fcc puts on broadband access, right? >> that's what the fcc defines it. but the comments just brought up by the caller are exactly some of the problems that many communities, rural and otherwise, are facing in the united states right now. and the fcc is trying to fix some of them. one of them involves can a public utility or can a government, a local government offer broadband service in competition with what a comcast or an at&t might offer. and that's prompted serious
political battles. the telecom carriers certainly don't want that to happen. they have complained to congress that the fcc has tried to break that log jam. but those are exactly the issues coming up ride now as some of the telecom carriers don't look to have that competition in their own backyards. >> linda is next. knoxville, tennessee, hi, linda. >> hi. first of all, i'm a history of technology major so i know something about this and there are federal subsidies for infrastructure have been in the u.s. since american history began, from canals to railroads, the california farm irrigation system, rural electrification and nothing about new about this. okay. now exactly, okay, second question is state and federal laws thwarted the effort for broadband expansion.
i've got two examples. the federal 1996 federal communication tax says a company doesn't have to allow wires over their poles if they don't want to. and in my area, the poles are owned by two different entities, at&t and the local public utility. but if somebody else comes in, they don't have to let them run the wires over their poles if they don't want to. now, state, tennessee state legislature just passed a law that forbids any taxpayer dollars going as seed money to a new public utility. so you can't use taxpayer dollars to run a new gas line and you can't use them to start a local broadband service. it has to be done with private money. so that's it. >> okay, linda. tony romm. >> that's exactly right. in tennessee, as you're talking about, the ban on public dollars being used to finance some of these projects, that's precisely
what many communities across the united states are facing. it's the thing that fcc chairman tom wheeler, a different agency than the one we talk about in this story, he's really worked to try to break that logjam but republicans don't want him to have it. the issue with poles, that's the other big thing that many of the stimulus recipients faced in their buildout. they had a very short time frame to put those wires in the ground or hang those wires from poles. sometimes local telecom carriers looking to stop a new entrant from competing against them would use their ability to access those poles to keep a new competitor off of them. that was one of the biggest problems in lake county. and that ultimately contributes to lesser broadband service in some of the communities that don't have it. >> karen is next, newburgh, new york. republican. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> okay. so i rarely ever call but i thought this might be of interest. your guest has not brought up what i see in advertisements all the time and that is dish
network offers broadband service by satellite to people in very rural areas. they show advertisements of people out on their farms. i watched a lot of alaska progr with people out in the middle of nowhere who do have electricity and have satellite coverage that are able to get broadband that way. the other thing i want to mention is that they have something called the government offers a service called last lineup. i'm sure that you're familiar with that for telephone service, and i know it's been mentioned a couple of times on the communicators regarding that in some fashion for people who are very low-income type situation. right now, as we speak, i have figured out a way to talk to you using a usb wi-fi adapter attached to my old 2004 pc
computer, and i've combined that with lifeline and a piece of software and i'm speaking to you totally free of charge using my computer. >> all of that is absolutely correct with respect to lifeline and the universal service, but they are working right now to expand those programs. the fcc just gave out a couple millions of dollars to carriers to help subsidize the construction of the infrastructure that allows the communities to have broadband and particularly in low-income communities and satellite internet has always know the topic of controversy in d.c., the utility service did spend millions of dollars on satellite, and there are those who believe satellite is not reliable and it's too expensive and not good enough for rural communities and there is a
downside, and for right now it's not the solution for many folks. >> how fast is the satellite in this country compared to other countries. >> it depends where you look and it comes down to price. you can get internet in the city like places in texas and maybe here in washington, d.c., but you're going to spend well over $100 to get that service. the united states is not the number one when it comes to broadband speed and when it comes to broadband adoption and that's one of the things they've been trying to fix as a result of the federal stimulus and this new effort on the part of the white house to bring together federal agency heads to talk about what they can do to spur broadband adoption and to improve broadband speeds. >> who is number one, which country and why? how did they do it differently than the united states? >> that in itself say huge fight and some of the countries it's more subsidized by government and they have government champions in places like europe where they're more willing to stand up a company than they
might be here. you ask a couple of telecom folks that question and they'll all come back with different answers for you. >> in virginia. a democrat? >> hi, yes. my question to you is are you also in the virgin islands and can you speak with auto tune. [ indiscernible ] will they provide broadband service in the united states virgin islands? i, myself, work with dish network and one of the amazing things is we set up a network system, but i want to know how can we get it here in the united states territory and bring that funding to the virgin islands?
>> okay. she's calling from the virgin islands, sicily. >> i didn't hear the entirety of that question, but what i will say is there are folks. i think you were asking about getting more funding to the virgin islands and there are folks in congress that are arguing to bring money back everywhere in the united states and so forth. the problem is that congress doesn't often invest in broadband and when it does it is in the utility service that has struggled to make sure its investments deliver the results folks are looking for. >> any talk of creating a whole new different agency or to just to focus on this issue alone because of its predominance in our economy and as it continues to grow? >> there hasn't been talk of creating one agency and there are plenty of agencies that do work on this, the federal communications commission has worked on telephones and it's doing work on broadband and it has the multibillion fund every year that has access to both and the third one is ntia and it's
another little-known acronym in d.c. that's housed within the commerce department that spends billions of dollars on things like computer centers and networks in various parts of the country and individual agencies across the government have grants that they handle to ensure that schools have access to internet and make sure computer are available and indian reservations and so forth. it's very piecemeal here in the united states. there has been some effort to unify that a little bit with what the president is calling the broadband opportunity council. earlier this year, the white house commission put their heads together and think about what we can do at the federal level and potentially without congress to address some of the broadband challenges and one of the things they started looking at is the providing high-speed broadband internet access in public housing projects so that when these places are upgraded or they're built new these connections are contemplated and wired as opposed to doing it much later down the line and
that sort of collaboration is a new development and the white house is putting effort behind that and some of that stems from the fact that congress has left the issues unresolved for many, many years. >> we'll go to oklahoma next, steve is there. good morning, steve. >> good morning. i would like to address the politics involved in as many that were still alive today that remember rural electrification and what a success that was, and the republicans in congress, their job seems to be to keep government from working, and this is a typical example and rural electrification was very successful and that through the privatization and deregulation and the mopolization of the telecoms, they learn things now, and i blame that on the american people voting for republicans and when they wake up to the fact that that's the problem then things will get better.
>> tony? >> sure. i think a lot of folks remember that history of rea, the rural electrification administration and there were folks who called it bolshevik, and they were doing that work and providing those funds to build electricity to rural town, but as the caller correctly stated it was a wild success decades which makes it more striking that the rural utility service that it had struggled so much with broadband. when it comes to partisanship and when it comes to the political parties in d.c. and telecom split both ways and they don't want the fcc going in there and playing as strong of a role in competition as democrats would like, but democrats have been in charge during expansions and to keep moments of consolidation in telecom. it was a democrat in charge for one when comcast purchased sbcu which was a different sort of deal, but just to give an example of a democrat that was
there when some of that was happening. >> and mar oie on twitter sayin i don't think taxpayers should be funding broadband and we already pay for our own services, #redistribution. paul? welcome to the conversation, paul. >> hi. i would like to know if you've ever done any research on a system that was developed about 10, 15 years ago where broadband could be sent down ordinary household lines and i understand it was tested in texas and it was extremely successful and this was 10, 12 years ago. i researched it on -- and the results were that it wasn't cost effective. in my opinion it would be very cost effective for rural areas. what can you tell me about this particular system that sends
broadband-bound house current lines right into your home, right in the wall socket? i'll hang up and take your response online. >> okay, paul. >> sure. admittedly i don't know the research that he's referring to right there, but there are folks who are trying to do new things to help build broadband out to various places whether it's using wireless, for example. one of the stimulus projects detailed in the story is the state of vermont where it is especially challenging to bury fiber line in mountainsides and from there they tried to use wireless towers to provide broadband, and there's always a give and take on these sorts of things. >> the investigation also uncovered some of these loans that were given out to communities and they had defaulted on them. why is that? what happened. >> for the stimulus so far the
agency has not yet experienced a default and default in the agency's terms means a couple of things. it could mean pay or didn't pay online or it has gone belly up and the u.s. experienced a rash of defaults, about 40 of the 100 loans that the government accountability studied in 2014. they had simply defaulted. in some cases, it's because they can't find a way to pay the government. we talked a little bit about things like universal service earlier in our conversation. a lot of the borrowers from the rural utility service take money from one agency, the fcc and use it to pay back a loan from the other agency in the u.s. and when that happens, when there isn't enough money to borrow the cost of it, some of the borrowers experienced trouble and the price of broadband remains too high for folks to afford it and the companies never recoup the profits they're looking for and if they can't find a way to sell the higher bidder they can't pay the government back and there are lot of obstacles here