Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal 04052018  CSPAN  April 5, 2018 6:59am-10:07am EDT

6:59 am
provider. >> live thursday on the c-span networks, at 10:00 a.m. on c-span, army secretary mark esper on troop readiness. and then at 2:00 p.m. trump is at the roundtable on tax policy. at 6:00 a.m., former mexican president vicente fox and british lawmaker and member of the british parliament debate nationalism and globalism. then at 10:00 a.m. on c-span 2 a discussion on autonomous weapons and international law. at 6:30 p.m., a discussion on the trump administration's foreign policy priorities. coming up in an hour, the first of two segments looking at journalism and fake news. first, news guard coast c.e.o. steve brill discusses his efforts to distinguish between journalism and fake news.
7:00 am
at 8:45 our guest is radio tv talk show host and columnist armstrong williams and he's here to discuss journalism and trust in the news media. ♪ host: good morning. it is thursday, april 5, 2018. a three-hour "washington journal" and head. trump administration officials announced the national guard will be sent to the u.s.-mexico border, and effort to crack down on illegal immigration. we are getting your reaction with special phone line for our callers. if you support sending national guard to the border, give us a call. ,f you oppose the deployment and if you live in a border state, we set aside a special
7:01 am
phone line for you. you can also catch up with us on social media come on twitter @c spanwj, and on facebook at we begin by showing you u.s. homeland security secretary kiersten nielsen yesterday at the white house talking about the deployment timeline, when it is going to happen, and expectations for numbers of troops deployed. nielsen: i will continue to have conversations with the governors today. we are working with all haste to agree on that. we have specified out the missions, where we need support from aerial surveillance through to some of the support functions
7:02 am
that the guard was able to do under president bush in operation jumpstart. are very specific state-by-state, locale by locale, and we will work in conjunction with the governors who are on the front lines to see what they need, and work within the national guard, but as soon as possible. conversations are ongoing. i don't want to get ahead of the governors. this is a partnership with them. we are giving of the opportunity to review our suggestions of how the national guard can support the border patrol, but i soon as numbers are available we will provide them. it will be as many as is needed to fill the gaps that we have today, is what i can tell you. we will go through and make sure. host: we will be going through that press briefing today in the first hour of "washington as showings well reaction from capitol hill and various newspapers around the country. also want to hear from you this
7:03 am
morning. as we said, special lines for those who support the deployment and set oppose it, aside that line for border state residents. also want to show you some tweets in recent days as this news was coming out as president trump was tweeting about it. here is congresswoman raul "he is clearlyg grasping at straws, sitting military troops to occupy the border as the latest in his reign of terror that wreaks havoc on immigrations -- havoc on immigrants and residents of border communities." kaine, "first it was a military parade to entertain himself, now it is deploying troops to border to him at take -- to the border to intimidate immigrants?
7:04 am
this is a commander-in-chief who first impulse always seems to be to use the military as his personal political prop." lieu, "proclamation doesn't actually send national guard troops to the border. because potus is using title 32 authority instead of federalizing the guard under fore 10, this is a request state governors to send troops." senator john cornyn writes, "deploying troops to the border is not unprecedented. the obama administration sent 1200 national guard troops to the southern border and 2010 to assist border patrol and immigration officials amid rising concerns of drug trafficking." the past 15mes in years the national guard has been sent to either the northern or southern border, in addition there was 2006 to 2008, operation jumpstart.
7:05 am
president george w. bush ordered 6000 troops to the border to assist with intelligence, construction, and administration to conduct more patrols. 2004, or troops were ordered to be northern border over concerns that terrorists could enter from canada. we want to hear from you this morning. pat is up first from dallas. good morning. caller: good morning. i am definitely for the national guard on the texas border. aggravated with the democrats. they are all raise again -- they are always against anything that the president does, and i am for anything that will stop illegal crossings across the rio grande, and that is where they are coming in. trump would dot
7:06 am
something about e-verify. that would end the problem because they come for jobs, and if they didn't have jobs they wouldn't be here. he other thing is the law promised, and i am hopeful -- is the wall he promised, and i am hopeful he will get it passed. there are multiple ways to get it paid by mexico. that is my comment this morning. thank you for listening. host: before you go, on the wall issue, is this something you expect it would be farther along by now in the trump presidency? caller: yes i did because he promised it, and i voted for him on the illegal immigration, and the wall was one of the issues, the reason he got my vote. host: who do you blame for where
7:07 am
the wall is right now, for the status, the fact that it is not as far along as you would like it to be? caller: congress. they didn't appropriate the money. host: that is pat in texas this morning, one of the states that already has a contingent national guard personnel along their border already. a statement in "the washington post" from texas governor greg abbott on the president's decision yesterday, saying, "the action by the trump administration reinforces a long-standing commitment to uphold the rule of law, and i welcome the support. going forward, texas will continue to implement robust border security efforts, and will ensure everything we can to stem the flow of illegal immigration to go -- immigration." california also a state that has some 55 national guard personnel on the border providing support for its anti-drug operations.
7:08 am
california's lieutenant colonel of the national guard said the state will "probably review the request from the administration to determine how best we can assist our federal partners." those statements both in today's "washington post." eric is in white plains, maryland on the line for those who support the deployment. go ahead. caller: good morning, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to express myself. i work in law enforcement, and i am an immigrant. i came into this country legally. i had to wait in line, but i came to america legally. i don't understand what is the problem for all the people, especially my latino brothers, who also follow the law. is it that hard? president trump is completely right to do what he is doing,
7:09 am
and i don't understand why the democrats are so against the law. america has laws. there is a way to come in this country. i don't understand why they are opposing every time he tries to secure the border. and one last thing, this isn't just about the illegals. we could have terrorists coming through that border right now. they could be already here because that border is so open. i don't get it, pedro. host: the line for those who oppose sending national guard troops to the border. go ahead, josh. caller: yes. lawlieve in immigration that needs to be followed, but sending troops to border -- to the border is another smokescreen, just like the wall. but wepport is needed,
7:10 am
have drones. what is a 15 foot wall going to do? sending me national guard to the border, there are so many places we could use our national guard and military and police force to protect the people that are here, but to protect a river in mexico? that just seems extreme. host: a smokescreen for what? caller: for what else is going on right now in our country. i don't want to get into a lot of stuff. a lot of things have been passed recently, obviously with the tax bill. trump just wants that gratification of doing something important in our country. he is just making everybody a little more on it. he is -- on hatch. heat -- on edge.
7:11 am
ands dividing our country, all he cares about is the border wall. just to throw this out there, mexico have been our friend for a very long time. they produce more than half of the food we eat. mexico sends support teams and people to work in our fields from california to new york. i may produce buyer, and the hardest -- i am a produce buyer come and the hardest thing to buy right now is produce because there is not enough labor, and not a lot of american labor wants to work in the field. the high price reflect on our food costs, and no one was our food costs. minneapolis,s in the line for those who support the deployment. go ahead. greetings to
7:12 am
everyone from minnesota, where it is six degrees out. it is beautiful. i think that with the border, there is us without a border, there is no sovereign nation -- without a border, there is no sovereign nation. , believe that in lieu of that with the border wall being built we could stabilize our border and push congress to act and reclaim our sovereign territory. host: james, you say this is a short-term solution. do you think congress will act? boy, that is a tough one because everything right now seems to be penning on how it is going to position for the fall elections. hether real action could be taken that doesn't consider
7:13 am
constantly whether they get to keep their swanky condo in d.c. is debatable. host: so james, if you are talking to one of those national guard troops being deployed, would you tell them to expect to settle in for a while? caller: yes, i think that would be a good idea. send a message to the narcos is everyone that our border a real border. i think they are doing that in, where, hungary or something? they are enforcing their border. i think it is just a fabulous idea. .t is our border it makes us proud when we defend our country. my ancestors have fought in every war, including the spanish-american war. my great uncle from chicago
7:14 am
fought in the spanish-american war, and on and on all the way down. they fought for our borders and our sovereign nation. host: james in minnesota this morning. in terms of what national guard troops will actually be doing on the border, you heard a little bit from secretary nielsen in that clip we played. here is more from the "washington post" story, noting that federal law prohibits lee terry officials from carrying out the method law enforcement activities. plan,president trump's congress will pass legislation to deal with what the administration says are illegal loopholes in immigration enforcement, according to an official familiar with the plan. the official discussed the unreleased details on the condition of anonymity said the troops are expected to be in a support role, contacting tasks -- conducting tasks such as road development and intelligence
7:15 am
gathering. bonnie is in maryland on the line for those who oppose. go ahead. caller: yes, i don't see any point of putting these people down there, these troops, because they are just putting them in harms way -- in harm's way. host: i'm listening. go ahead. caller: i'm sorry. i just don't see any purpose of sending these troops down there because they are not armed. they are not allowed to arrest anybody or anything. they are just sitting ducks is all they are. sent, i knowng people that have come here legal. it takes years and money that they can't afford. sense --say bill that build that fence around mar-a-lago. maybe this will satisfy this man's ego because that is all
7:16 am
this is is an ego trip. he has blinders on when it comes to that wall. host: eric is in arizona, a border state. caller: i am all for putting up that wall, but seeing as how they are not going to work with trump, how about we do like that western said and tax union remittance money, and also e-verify is not going to work because i've worked where the simple have had perfect ids for and they get hired anyways, and this is coming from an american sponsorsn descent who
7:17 am
-- who won't sponsor his own relatives from mexico because they want special treatment and they don't deserve it. host: special treatment how? caller: special treatment as paying for their anchor babies to be born, food stamps for stealings, and also jobs from americans. they destroyed my livelihood in arizona. they are paying what they paid 20 years ago for a construction worker, and he destroyed my livelihood. host: a lot of questions yesterday about the timing of this announcement from the trump administration. that same "washington post" story noting that in recent years, the number of people crossing the border illegally into the country has plummeted and is at its lowest level since 1971. there are signs the numbers
7:18 am
could rise. released by the government of homeland security showed that border agents apprehended about 50,000, 300 march -- 50,300 people in , a steep increase from march 2017, when that figure was about 16,600. that number was significantly lower than previous apprehensions from the past four years. homeland secretary kiersten nielsen talking about the timing of this decision. >> i am just trying to understand what the urgency for this is. it seemed like it ramped up over the past couple of days, and since the weekend, in fact. the house is not here. the senate is not here. why is this such an urgent priority right now for the president? i would say the numbers continue to increase. april traditionally is a month in which we see more folks crossing the border without a legal right to do so.
7:19 am
partly it is anticipating. we are seeing more and more , very unfortunately, by traffickers and smugglers to our south specific to how to get around our system and enter our country and stay. we have documented cases of borrowing children and going across the border as a family unit. today is the day we want to start this process. the threat is real, as i mentioned. >> what responsibility does the white house or the department congress to urging do something more permanent, rather than having national guard troops down there who are stretched thin already? sec. nielsen: is a great question. we do want -- it is a great question. we do want congress to act. we had been hopeful we would the able to agree on a bipartisan bill.
7:20 am
the president supported two of the four. that has not gotten us where we need to be in terms of enforcing the law, so we are taking what actions we can as an executive branch and hope that we can soon again start the conversation with congress. host: taking your calls this morning in the first hour of "washington journal." if you support the deployment of troops to the u.s.-mexico border, if you oppose it, and a special line for border state residents. kevin in woodbridge, virginia for the line for those who oppose. caller: good morning. give you a little background. i am a retired army national guard officer. i used to plan for these kinds .f operations i ame, if you don't mind,
7:21 am
not going to take long, but i need to go through the point. understandsted lieu clearly the difference between title x and title 32 and what those differences are. to deploy those troops, they must be in title 32 status. title x is a combat authority. we are not declaring war, so if anybody got shot it would be a big problem. title 32 is the right answer. guardedlyll you i am opposed without better definition of the authorities to be used and really specific rules of engagement. , one,ave to understand the national guard was in airports after 9/11. the national guard's mission after any disaster is they had a mission to secure areas.
7:22 am
both of those are armed missions, and we do have precedents there. the problem here is they will be an unarmed support roles. in any situation, you may find yourself or you have to be armed , and if you are armed you are going to be in -- if you are unarmed you are going to be in trouble. and what happens in these operations is scope creep. they come to do something, and before you know it you have unarmed troops in a place they should be armed. that is why i really guardedly oppose unless they get better, more defined authorities and better rules of engagement that will allow soldiers to have at least some modicum of defense. host: did you deploy in any of these previous deployments to the border? caller: i did deploy. i had to visit to make sure the plans were correct because i worked at the headquarters.
7:23 am
host: when you say you worked on the planning for it come over you with a state national guard? caller: the national guard has two levels. one is at the state, which is title 32. title 32 includes things like state active duty, which is basically national guardsmen that belong to the governor. then you have title x. those are federal national guardsmen, and they report to the president just like any other regular military member. host: right. and as you and ted lieu pointed out, this request is coming for title 32. caller: right. what will happen is this. is the request hasn't come from , the x to title 32 national guard bureau is the actual federal agency that is the communications link between
7:24 am
the federal, in other words the president, and the departments because whether you know it or not, unless the army national guard -- or not, the army national guard in the air force national guard are both part of his deployments. they have to be processed as a request to the state. any state can say no or say yes. ands up to that governor that commanding general within that state to say what they want to do. host: right, and as we pointed out, ted lieu encouraging his governor to say no to this deployment. giving then about folks who are down there it way to protect themselves, one of the complaints in previous appointments is that border patrol agent's who are armed -- agents who are armed essentially had to guard the national guard troops down there who are unarmed. the you think that will happen again this time?
7:25 am
-- do you think that will happen again this time? caller: if they don't better think through the rules of engagement and authorities given to national guard soldiers, then yes. ,f those guys are unarmed because you do have drug cartels in that situation that put you in a condition where you are in harms way, none of these guys come without those authorities, they can't protect themselves. and if they do, there is going to be a big hearing. if you violate rules of engagement, normally what is when you have investigations, court-martial's, those kind of things. host: thanks for walking us through. what you do now? caller: i am retired. host: appreciate your call to "washington journal." wayne is in michigan for those who support the deployment. i was a border state
7:26 am
person because we do have a border, but we also have a moat. host: go ahead with your comment. caller: i used to drive a truck along the border. there are over 150 officers from texas along the border right now, supposedly. they have used troops before. if article 32 is processed properly as the previous caller said, they can actually do what they can do because there's going to be construction teams down there. is going to be all kinds of people down there, and the some sort of security. the border control -- the border patrol can work in tandem and handle prevention. it is pretty basic. together,t article 32 it is no problem. the main problem with this whole thing is going to be the media. factcallers alluded to the that this is a grandiose scheme
7:27 am
from the president. well, no, it is actually border security. " talksthe new york times about some of the concerns among members of the military about what could happen on the border. it notes that defense department officials have said that secretary mattis supports the proposal is it mirrors proposals under previous presidents, but not in an enforcement role. active-duty military is generally barred by law from carrying out the method law enforcement functions such as desk carrying out domestic law-enforcement functions such -- carrying out domestic law-enforcement functions such as detaining people at the border. and american student was killed by a river united states marines on a drug surveillance mission in texas while he was herding goats, the first american
7:28 am
civilian to be killed by active-duty military troops since the can't state massacre states -- the kent massacre in 1970, and the episode it led to the clinton and with efficient suspended troop trolls near the border. even if secretary mattis tries to steer president trump towards limited border deployment using his predecessors, the president "would want to be visible," said the pentagon's top financial advisor during president bush's first term. "if mexico responded by putting troops on its side of the border, the situation to deteriorate quickly. all it takes is one mistake. somewhat he fires, and then what?" linengton, utah for the for those who oppose. caller: good morning. hello? hi. i am against it.
7:29 am
there's other things we could use the national guard on. when i use the drones? we use the drones in europe and afghanistan and stuff like that. use them here and but our national guard elsewhere. i am against the wall. good, and i cannot change what is in my head because it is a cuss word. host: we get your point. caller: we have at least 11 million people in the country who have absolutely no right to be here. the only reason they got in, and the only reason they remain in the country, is because we have two corrupt entities, the democratic party on the left, in the corporate republicans on the right who want cheap labor. we need to do everything possible to keep these criminals out of our country. if that means putting 100,000 troops on the border, then we do it. i'm tired of these corrupt politics.
7:30 am
the middle class has been devastated by cheap illegal labor. host: alvin is in houston, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i am glad for the wall. it should have been built a longtime ago. all these people coming in just one welfare and free health care. we need that wall, and it should have been built. thank you. host: joy is in oklahoma on the line for those who oppose. good morning. caller: good morning. i oppose it. i don't think it is going to be going up. there's a lot of eminent domain issues that are going to be happening. immigration from mexico is at a 46 year low. of one to tell just a quick little story. i was living in california and i helped an illegal immigrant. i worked with her. we waitressed together and she wanted to become legal. i helped her with a lot of her paperwork. she had to hire an attorney.
7:31 am
long story short, it took five years and $7,000 for her to become legal, and she didn't have any kind of criminal record or anything. we have to fix the root of the problem. only 30% of all illegal immigrants come from mexico. this is fear mongering that the president is doing, and i am sick of it. host: before you go, is five years and $7,000 unreasonable in your mind? caller: absolutely. i mean, people were coming from ellis island, all they did was sign a piece of paper and it were coming in. it is ridiculous. i worked with her during all of those years, and it was a struggle every day. dealing with an attorney and everything, so yes, it is just ridiculous. thank you for taking my call. host: mary in woodbridge, illinois for those who support. caller: hi.
7:32 am
i support it because one thing, on the budget, if the united to givehinks it is ok to other countries money help them build their wall, why can't we have the money to build our wall? i worked with the illegals for over 25 years. one guy came in it illegal. for 20 years i worked for him illegal. comfortable with high-paying wage, and in 2007 our wages started going down and he started condemning the illegals himself, so i think all the citizens should look at whoever voted against the wall, get them out of office, and all these phony republicans out of office, and give president trump people he needs to bring our country back. host: a few tweets since we've been having this conversation this morning.
7:33 am
dems want illegals to come to our country because they feel it would be more votes for them. i even heard one admit that was the reason, although it was obvious to most without her having to say it." "first he brags about how much he's decreased border crossing, now this. there is no need for a stupid wall or troops on the border. america should be ashamed of itself for this." we are taking your calls in this first hour of "washington journal" about the president's decision yesterday to deploy national guard to the u.s.-mexico border. more of those calls in just a second, but also want to keep you updated on some other stories we've been following. continuing with news yesterday from president trump, he's instructed his military commanders to quickly wrap up the american military operation in syria so that he can bring troops home within a few months. seniorng to administration officials, he
7:34 am
dropped his insistence on an immediate withdrawal after commanders told him they needed time to complete their mission. the president's decision to get the 2000 troops on the ground in syria for the immediate future came in a meeting of the national security council in the white house situation room on tuesday hours after president trump told a room full of reporters that it is time to bring american forces home from a conflict that has been a battlefield in the fight against the islamic state. this from the front page of "the financial times" this morning, click the of talk about a potential trade war between the united states and china. beijing threatening yesterday to impose tariffs on $50 billion of u.s. imports and sending equity and commodity markets reeling yesterday as investors braced for that possible trade war between the worlds two -- the world's two biggest economies.
7:35 am
there was an unusually tough rhetoric that promised to match the white house. "china does not want a trade war because no one will emerge as a winner in a trade war," said vice minister of commerce for china, "but if someone insists on fighting a trade war, we will be there." what the u.s. is targeting when andomes to chinese exports, the chart here noting the targets bytted by -- the trump trade tariffs. optical and photographic instruments, aluminum, pharmaceutical products, and so on down the line. u.s. products fit would be under threat include an emphasis on fruit,s, seed and vehicles, plastics, chemical products, cotton, soap and cleaning products, tobacco, enzymes, and others. the rent up in "the financial
7:36 am
times -- the wrapup in "the financial times" this morning. another note on where we go from here when it comes to dealings with china and the trade dispute. front page of "the wall street journal" noting that the two size will follow a timeline where they will seek to negotiate a new normal. president trump, who initiated the tensions over chinese trade practices, now faces growing pressure from lawmakers and an intense campaign from local lobbyists and businesses, all of which fed market volatility. back to your calls on president trump's announcement yesterday to work with governors to send national guard troops to the u.s.-mexico border. now to the line for those who support the decision. caller: obama did the same thing.
7:37 am
trump is just doing what he said he was going to do. his approval rating is at an all-time high right now, much higher than obama's was. it just blows my mind, these democrats that calling here. it doesn't matter what the topic is. is trump is for us, the democrats call in and say the world is coming to an end and he is an idiot and his supporters are idiots. i think they are so disingenuous. i get it. president, there was a section of the republican party that said we are going to do everything to stop this guy's agenda. it is just tit for tat. but are we the only stupid country in the whole world that doesn't have border security? is that what we have relegated ourselves to? host: linda is in ohio on the line for those who oppose. caller: yes, hello. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i am not really opposed or for it.
7:38 am
i am confused with it because i think it could be good and it could also cause a lot of problems. i just get really confused with it. i live in ohio. we are seeing a lot more --eigners, a lot more to go a lot more people taking jobs in ohio i've never seen before. i am 72 years old. i was a democrat for a lot of years. i went republican in the second term of obama. i am confused. i am hoping it helps. i just wish they would let trump do what he can do and just give him a chance, and if he doesn't work out, vote them out. they are ruining the whole country over all of this stuff against him, but i am confused with this. everybody else did it, but i don't think it is good and i don't think it is that. you people are really good was taking calls of people, and that it really helps. host: appreciate that. what do you think giving him a chance looks like? what do you mean?
7:39 am
caller: he tries to do good and everybody fights him. it is just, give him a chance. host: that is linda in ohio this morning. larry is and i'll on the line for those who support the decision. caller: good morning. you are doing a great job this morning. there's been some great calls coming into you guys. i am a first time caller, and i voted for our president. i support his actions on the border. i think he is trying to do a good job for us. he is not perfect, but i think he is trying to do the right thing and i guess that is about all i got to say to you. host: appreciate the call. hope you continue to call in down the road. appreciate that. ius is in greensboro, north carolina for those who oppose. go ahead. trump'syes, i oppose
7:40 am
doing this. what he need to do, he need to put up a wall between here and russia. the first thing he knew to do is wife out of here, host: we will move on. bruce is on the line for those who support the decision. caller: yes, a couple of things i would like to say. my grandfather came over in 1901 from germany, and there was no welfare. there was no benefits. he had to have a sponsor to get into the country at that time, and he went and lived with my great-grandmother at that time. that justno freebie walked in and signed what that one caller said earlier. and another thing, obama and bush both put national guard troops on the border and nobody said boo about it.
7:41 am
it is just because it is trump and everybody is against him. to my liberal friends out there, if you are so into letting everybody come into the country, you adopt them. you pay for them. you take care of them and send them to school and feed them and give them medical treatment. then it will be ok they can all come in. host: the editorial board of "the new york times" down as opposed to this plan. the headline today, "mr. trump's full list plan has at best a tenuous basis in law and none in and it will burn through federal funds best spent elsewhere. one impediment could be american law barring the use of law -- use of the
7:42 am
armed forces for civilian law enforcement tasks unless authorized by the constitution or congress. since the 1980's, however, the defense department, including -- mr. trumpguard is resorting to the demagogues tactic of inspiring fear and appears not to understand why the act was enacted, to limit powers of federal government in using military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the united states. ifshould the used sparingly, at all, and surly not for crass political purposes." we have donething historically in the past to disrupt and destabilize these country's governments then leads to the problem we are at today with people seeking asylum from
7:43 am
all the problems we have created. let's just take guatemala and honduras, for example, in the 1920's all the way to 1996. thatt in a coup destabilize the entire country and killed a bunch of people with genocide, the native people. that is why these people are seeking asylum. i think maybe if we were to be fully accountable for our actions historically like it seems everyone wants to be these days, we would go down there and correct the situations, you know? it just seems like maybe these troops on the border, it is like a pissing competition. thank you. host: elizabeth in michigan on the line for those who oppose. go ahead. caller: yes, and i on the air? host: yes ma'am, go ahead. caller: what i don't understand is why this country is beginning to be extreme. whatever happened to the middle? i can see in certain places were -- i hate tostance
7:44 am
use the word wall because he uses it and it is such an inappropriate thing where he is making everything warmongering, this-mongering, the guy is nuts -- i think we need more fencing, but we need to make more use of drones, border agents, the water. national guard on the border isn't going to do anything. i am so tired of people saying if they would just let trump do what trump was to do, do they know where we would be if we let him do what he wants to do? he is trying to unravel the country. we need to get back to common sense and moderation. that is all i have to say. host: randall is in south carolina on the line for those who support the plan. go ahead. caller: and i on the air? ok, great.
7:45 am
listen, i support the border wall on the southern border, and i also support a wall of the northern border. let's put a wall between us and canada. why not do that? i think i also have a solution for the daca question. the solution is if you have native ancestry -- of course, we are a nation of immigrants -- and if you are a daca person and you have native ancestry, why not allow these people to have their dna tested? we been able to map the human genome. let these people who are alleged daca people, if they have native ancestry, let them become citizens of their homeland. i support a wall on the north and i support a wall on the south. thank you. host: randall in south carolina this morning as we are cooking up the president.
7:46 am
a lot of his focus -- talking about the president. a lot of his focus on twitter has been that caravan of migrants as it's me -- as it made its way through mexico. is expected to end its journey at the mexican capital rather than pushing north to the u.s. border, according to organizers, on wednesday. "the washington post" notes that while many say they will try to get to the united states on its own, has been decided at that the caravan will finish in mexico city after a stop in the city of puebla later this week. the president making note of that news on twitter just a few months ago. "the caravan is largely broken up thanks to the strong immigration laws of mexico and their willingness to use them so as not to cause a giant seen at our border. because of the trump actions, border crossings are at a still unacceptable 46 year low.
7:47 am
stop drugs!" that is the president from just about three minutes ago. taylor is in california. good morning. caller: good morning. we are on the border, and my friend was from guatemala. my mom was always talking kind of like your caller from arizona, that it ruined her chances of employment, having immigrants come over. my opinion is that there is a national migration that has been going on for thousands of years come and this is just kind of ridiculous and also kind of scary think about the military being on the border. host: taylor, what do you say to s who say we are a nation of laws, a nation with borders, we need to defend them? caller: i think we should have a strong border, and my boyfriend voted for trump, so i am kind of
7:48 am
sympathetic to his plight with himdemocrats being on constantly with "morning joe" and everything. at the same time, i just don't like the idea of the troops lining up down there. i think that is hysteria and i don't like it. host: taylor, did you know that this had happened under the obama administration and george w. bush administration, as was pointed out by officials in this announcement yesterday? caller: that they sent troops down there? no, i wasn't aware of that. host: does it change your opinion on it? no it: know it doesn't -- doesn't. host: about 1200 troops to the southern border back in 2010, operation phalanx. operation jumpstart sent about 6000 troops.
7:49 am
the line for those who support the plan, go ahead. caller: yes, i was born in calexico, california. i lived down there for 18 years and visit down there, and i do wall from need the actual experience. as far as the troops, we did not seem to have any problem in little rock, arkansas putting the 101st airborne to fulfill federal law. i don't see a problem of putting the marines if we cannot get california national guard to protect our border. we always want to protect what towant when it comes differentiating between schools or anything else. couldn't -- we tend to become very political. but if you look at it as a country, i believe we should be able to protect our country. that is all i have to say. host: you started off by
7:50 am
mentioning the need for the wall. secretary of homeland security cures to nielsen talked yesterday about the status -- kierstin nielsen talked yesterday about the status of the wall at the press briefing. currentlyen: appropriated, we will build at a 150 miles -- build about 150 miles. we are building real-time. >> how much has been built at this point? sec. nielsen: to us it is all new wall. if there is wall that needs to be replaced, it is being replaced by a new wall. so this is the trump border wall. >> for replacing a wall would count as a new wall come in your words? sec. nielsen: yes. border patrol has submitted a very specific land to congress where we need the wall, what type of wall we need.
7:51 am
we finished evaluating all the prototypes. we have a toolkit, if you will. some parts of the border are very different. walls,t will have taller some places have levies. we are continuing to work out based on the funding we have and what we learned from the prototypes. we should have much better estimates soon. >> so it is still unclear what you think it will cost? sec. nielsen: we have the down payments. we are working with congress to find out what additional funds we need for what. host: we have been showing you parts of that briefing with secondary nielsen throughout this first hour of -- secretary nielsen throughout the first hour of "washington journal." to watch in its entirety, go to celia is in connecticut on the line for those opposed. am i on?nd ion? --
7:52 am
wall,the wall, the mexico i am totally against it. but me try to explain my point. the type of person coming to our country is trying to do the cheap work to help us. they work very hard in the farms. they should be legalized. two, second kind of person coming to this country, they come to push drugs. why? because we, some young people, need them. so what we need to do is put the money where the profit is, that is to enhance education. education is where we need to put the money in, ok? i do not want to see the wasting of money and time where the problem is not really solved. thank you very much. host: mary is in goldsboro, north carolina for those who
7:53 am
support. go ahead. caller: we have folks coming through the wall. -- drugs coming through the wall. it is destroying the whole united states. our kids are getting hold of these drugs. their lives are being ruined. they are not able to support the country. do you have a member in your family whose life has been destroyed by drugs? the whole family has been destroyed by drugs? this alone is a great thing. get the drugs stop and let our country get back on our feet. let our good young people have lives again. i am 86 years old. i am an immigrant. came to the country in 1956. i am still working very productive, and i think this is a way to go. get the drugs out of the country and the aliens. thank you.
7:54 am
host: stephanie in new jersey. good morning. on the line for those who support. caller: good morning. support and in't don't oppose because, as has been stated several times, president bush and president obama actually did this very same thing. this decision of his come as far as it comes to immigration, is the least of our concerns because he is not boots on the ground. i feel it we should trust the people in charge who give the order to fire or to hold fire. they are professional national guardsmen. they are professional soldiers. highly trained and they know how to avoid any detriment mishaps. this is the least of my concern. host: what is the most of your concern, stephanie? caller: the most of my concern is the attitude that he has allowed to flow freely and that
7:55 am
he promotes, let people saying stopping mexicans will stop drugs. not all mexicans that come here are drug dealers, and if you close the borders of mexico, there will still be drugs because there are drugs that are manufactured and grown and made here in the united states. united states citizens are drug dealers. united states citizens produce drugs. deciding that where a person comes from is a determinant of what kind of criminality that they would participate in is wrong. that is a basis for racism. the caller who talked about compulsory dna testing to prove whether or not you have native blood, this is not not to germany -- not nazi germany. this is not jim crow america. that type of attitude, with he speaks he makes it sound like it is ok, like he justifies it because people say, that is what i was thinking.
7:56 am
why were you thinking that? that is not right. that is the type of thing that concerns me, dividing us as a nation based on race-based theories about if you are mexican, you are a drug dealer. if you come from a muslim country, you are probably terrorist. and if you are homegrown we probably just ignore it. he hasthose ideas that about what race is or what color you are, that is where it comes from. that concerns me. host: we mentioned the president's first tweet of the morning, again focusing on that migrant caravan that has now largely been broken up. in "the washington post" today in an op-ed talks about the president's focus on that migrant caravan.
7:57 am
they headlined, "xena phobic hysteria from the commander in phobic -- xenoph obic hysteria from the commander-in-chief. caravanthis terrifying that necessitates tweeting in capital letters? it consists of roughly 1000 migrants, including 300 children and 400 women, primarily from under us and afflicted by poverty, political violence, and one of the world's highest, separates. the message that just 1000 refugees pose an existential threat to the world's sole superpower is yet another bia he uses toopho galvanize his base and consolidate his own power." a few more calls.
7:58 am
jeff is in north carolina on the line for those who support. caller: hello. i support the wall. primarily our country should be the number one focus of our president's concerns. it shows you when not only bush, but obama, since the national guard down there, and way that reaganan -- way back to we had the immigrant agreement. that shows that there is a problem. other presidents felt the need to send the guard down, this president says let's fix the problem, and when you got all these people worried about paying for the wall, no one showed any concern about money when obama since all that money to the iranian people for that nuclear deal. he did that without asking anybody.
7:59 am
but president trump is asking america, and most of the people i've talked to and listen to, we need to stop the drugs. we need to stop the illegal immigrants. that wall is going to stop lots of drugs. i really support the wall. i support donald trump. we all can see that the problem does exist. ast: one last call from border state down in tyler, texas. good morning. go ahead sir. caller: yes, i support trump on everything. i was just wondering why he couldn't send the army corps of engineers down there to build that wall. host: that is jim in tyler, texas. one note from "the wall street journal's" coverage of what happened yesterday at the white house with this announcement. most of the focus was on what we have been talking about, the deployment of the national guard troops.
8:00 am
on wednesday, officials also said that the pentagon would consider building walls for at least one military base along the u.s.-mexico border while also considering similar construction at other sites. so, some information there for you. will spend the next hour and a half of "washington journal" focusing on the topics of the state of journalism and fake news in this country. up first, we will be joined by steven brill, to talk about his new enterprise, newsguard. later we will be joined by conservative radio and tv host armstrong williams, as we continue to discuss trust of the news media. we will be right back. ♪ sunday on "1968 -- america in
8:01 am
-- liberal politics, as we look back at liberal activists redefine the role of government and challenging traditional values. daughters are -- rfk's and former lieutenant governor of maryland. "1968-america in turmoil," journal"'s "washington and c-span 3. katz was taped by the fbi. the supreme court's decision ultimately expanded americans rights to privacy and forever
8:02 am
change the way law-enforcement officers conducted investigation. our guests are jeffrey rosen, president and ceo of the national constitution center in jaffer,phia, and jameel director of the national security law and policy program, both at george mason's university anthony scalia law school. join the conversation. the #landmarkcases. we have resources on the website for background on each case, the "landmark cases" companion book, a link to the interactive constitution, and a "landmark cases" podcast at "washington journal" continues. host: steven brill is back with
8:03 am
us, the founder of court tv. he joins us to discuss his latest venture, newsguard, the idea to use journalism to fight fake news. define that term for us -- fake news. guest: in our case what we are hoping to solve is news that purports to be news but is fabricated or is propaganda that does not reveal itself as propaganda. occasionalhe inaccurate story somewhere, or a story that has a headline that is partly exaggerated. it is really clear, blatant, hoaxes and propaganda. there is a lot of it online, and people can not or are unable to tell the difference because the whole point of fake news is it poses as real news and sometimes it does that effectively. host: does editorial bias count
8:04 am
toward what you are talking about? guest: not really, unless it is so biased it is just ridiculous. you know, if you have a headline in a story that says president obama was not born in the united states, some people might say that is just their opinion, their bias, but that is just fake. caller: how probable -- host: how prevalent is fake news now? guest: it is prevalent in the sense that a tiny minority of news and information websites that people consume every day are fake or propaganda. they tend to be shared out of proportion with how many there are because their headlines are so provocative and the stories they pedal are so provocative. to beat causes people deceived if they share them.
8:05 am
host: what do you envision newsguard doing as you wade into this environment? guest: what we're going to do is look at, rate, and review the approximately 5000 to 7000 united statese that are responsible for 95% of the engagement in the english language. we are starting in the english language in the united states. we will expand. we will have two journalists each independently review those sites and give them either a green or red rating, and then right something called the nutrition label that if you mouse over the red or the green you will get a 200, 300, 400-were description of what the site actually is -- who is behind it, how is it financed,
8:06 am
how do the people who write the site -- how are they trained, are they accountable, who is in charge? it basically asks and answers the question who are the people telling you this. host: do you envision this to be a money-making venture? guest: yes, we do, because we envision we are solving a problem that has been created by some of the richest companies in the world, and we are in discussion with them and we anticipate that some or all of them will license the data so that if you do a search or look at a news feed our red and green dots will be there, as will the nutrition labels. what we are going to be is the opposite of a blackbox -- the algorithms they now use with a platform that says we have an algorithm and that is how you see the news an week -- news.
8:07 am
we cannot tell you how we do it, who is doing it, because you would game the system. we are the opposite of that. we tell you who read and rated the site, why they gave the rating they did, who they are, and what their bios are. it is the exact opposite of what is going on today to solve the problem, and what is going on today to solve the problem is clearly not solving the problem. host: your hoping is green and red ratings will show up on facebook and twitter feeds as people share the stories. guest: exactly. we will also have a way for consumers to sign up and get the plugin version if they like it and we will not charge consumers for that. we will distribute it to media literacy groups, school systems, but the real place where it needs to be and will be will be
8:08 am
in the search platforms and the social media platforms. we see ourselves as the perfect place in the middle of regulation by the government, which we don't think is a good thing, and the constitution doesn't think is a good thing, -- leaving it to the platforms in the search engines to solve the problem on their own, which clearly they have not been able to do, and which they don't want to do because they don't want to be in the business of being the editors. we want to be in the business of being editors. we are editors. if there are companies that start up to do the same thing we are doing, we would urge the platform to start a competition where they can compete with us. host: how much do you think facebook needs to rebuild trust in the wake of headlines like this one from this morning in
8:09 am
"washington times" -- 87 million facebook users swept up in the facebook scandal, tens of millions more than had been previously reported. guest: i think the headline answer the questions you just asked. whether it is their fault or not, they have clearly suffered through having a product that turns out not to be quite what they said it was. host: it is where you want to go if you want to check out the idea behind newsguard, the nutrition labels, examples of what steven brill is talking about this morning. who else is behind it with you? was anwell, my partner oftor on the editorial page "the journal."
8:10 am
he is my partner in this venture. we are exposed -- hiring experienced editors, and we are looking for journalists who want to help us do this who have the common sense of the reporting ability to write the nutrition labels and to be able to participate in what we think is a really exciting and necessary venture. and you have raised over $5 million for this project from who? guest: can we ever is a total of $6 million. each of the investors is also listed on the website so that that is clearly transparent. one of the larger ad agency holding companies is the lead and instead. -- investor. the ad agencies have a stake in this because major brand names
8:11 am
don't want to have their ads ending up on fake news sites. right now with programmatic advertising, as it is called, that often happens without the protection newsguard will be able to provide them. host: we're taking a calls in this segment of "washington journal." republicans can call : steven brill, you mentioned nutrition labels. an example of what you are talking about, this is for the first paragraph notes it is the leading -- the website of the leading russian propaganda effort. previously known as russia today, it uses the tagline "question more."
8:12 am
it raises doubts about other countries and their institutions. it then goes through the history of rt, some of the controversy it has been involved in. how did you come up with that label? who came up with it? guest: that is called reporting. i actually drafted that one myself, and it is the same kind of reporting i would do with anything else, looking at all different kinds of sources. the reason that is a good example of a necessary nutrition label is that nowhere on their website do they tell you that this is financed by the russian government, that it is controlled by vladimir putin, and the really interesting thing videos africa's only the second, or the third --
8:13 am
are frequently the second, or the third most-watched news videos running with cnn, and it is a propaganda arm. the average consumer, if they see something called -- how would they know? if they see the red dot, they would he warned, and if they mouse over the red dot, they will read the nutrition label you just glad, and they will know this is something that is different from a normal -- just read, and they will know this is something that is different from a normal new site. whatever you think of cnn, that is not the propaganda arm of the russian national guard. host: will you extend this to television stations and radio as well? guest: anything that is online. -- host:
8:14 am
guest: sorry, silly me, i forgot. will get a green label, as will there are all kinds of news and so thetion sites online, people who go there, if they are looking at a news feed now, the only thing they see is a headline, and they have no idea who is behind it. host: let's chat with a few callers. susan is up first from california. a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. go ahead, susan. you are on with steven brill. caller: yes. i am sorry. i did not hear all of what you
8:15 am
said, i did not hear the beginning. i am wondering who are you, where do you stand? are you really in the middle? host: brill mr. -- mr. brill? guest: i am in the middle. the background of myself and everyone involved will be completely transparent so you understand who we are. i have the good fortune or the bad fortune in the journalism work i have done -- i have been criticized by unions on the left and by drug and from a single companies on the right. i think i can say i am in the middle, but that is really not the point. this is probably the one conversation where c-span doesn't need the republican line and the democratic line. simply basic common
8:16 am
sense and truth. the sites that are going to get the red are so blatantly propagandistic or blatantly deceptive, the judgments we are making are going to be far less disputed and controversy of then -- controversy oh then you might think. yet it is a major problem. people, again, do not know that rt is vladimir putin's propaganda arm. host: i wonder how you feel about the criticism you have received over this venture. whosedia research center, tagline is exposing and combating liberal media bias, did a writeup of your latest venture and they know to a past campaign contributions to democratic candidates. do you think those matter? guest: i think the last one was sometime in the 1990's, and that
8:17 am
was at the time that i made contributions to rudy giuliani, who is a republican, and i just do not think it is relevant, but i am glad to have it exposed. credibilitynd have based on what i think will be the fairly obvious common sense of what we are doing. the not out there saying boston globe is more reliable than the baltimore sun or that this particular story is accurate or not accurate. what we are really doing is separating the wheat from the chaff. what we are really doing is saying that the denver post is actually a newspaper, and the journalists work there, and the denver guardian, a hoax site that popped up just before that theday on 2016 -- "denver guardian" is not a
8:18 am
newspaper, it is not anything. it is a phony website that put up hoaxes to get the advertising money that came with their traffic. it is basically what is the difference between "denver post" and denver guardian. i don't think that is a republican or democratic cause. that is a cause that is an american cause. city, washington, died, a democrat. caller: i would like to have everyone listening go to the and read the history of the fcc. they gutted the fcc started in 19 -- if they had gutted the ftc limbaugh would not be on, this gentleman would not be on. i have heard you say propaganda.
8:19 am
what this is going to do is turn over propaganda to a handful of people to assess what can and cannot be on television. host: guy, thanks for the call this morning. we want to get you to respond. guest: i did not understand the question or the comments so i cannot respond. host: what is your take on the fairness doctrine and whether it should come back? guest: well, the fairness doctrine was enacted based on the notion -- it was enacted by based on the notion -- infosys it was licensing airwaves, radio spectrum and television spectrum. it was a scarce commodity. to have privileged to have that license, you had to pledge certain things, do certain things in the public interest,
8:20 am
and you had to be fair or so-called fair because if you are using a public property, which was the airwaves, you couldn't use it in an unfair way. that is the core of the fairness doctrine. it is not relevant. there is no scarcity. cable channels and there is veryne, little in the way of a barrier to entry to someone who wants to communicate his or her ideas or entertainment. whateveress doctrine, you think of it, whatever you think the legitimacy of its roots is just really not relevant, and when it was operating, there were all kinds of problems -- you know, what is your definition of fair? does that mean if you have a democrat on, you have to have a republican on? what about someone and the green
8:21 am
party? what about someone in some party you never heard about because it was just started yesterday? it had its own problems. were logical at a time when spectrum was really scarce, and it is not scarce anymore. host: wanda is in chico, california, republican. good morning. first thing i have to say is someone who presents himself as you do is the one i distrust the most, and my question is that do you think that sheriff arpaio's computer analysis video where he proves that barack obama's birth certificate is fake scientifically -- do you think that sheriff arpaio is a liar? guest: i have not seen his analysis or his video, but i do think -- call me biased, call me
8:22 am
crazy, but i do think barack obama was born in the united states. wanda, why did you say what you started with -- somebody who presents himself as you do, you don't trust? caller: because he presents himself as the final arbitrator of who is lying and who is not, and he he sounds like he is trying to a deep-state liar. guest: i don't present myself as the final arbiter of anything. there should be companies that will attempt to do what we do and compete with us, and you should have the right to decide which one you want to rely on. i just think you shouldn't want to rely on the government to decide what is true or not true, or rely on the platforms, which are technology companies, and which say they don't have a responsibility to do their job. i don't think we should be the final arbiter. i think you should be able to
8:23 am
choose any arbiter you want, but i don't think you want to choose the government or some engineers. host: how will you be choosing e reporters you will be hiring to write these nutrition labels and make these ratings? guest: based on their experience , we are giving them all kinds of facts -- assignments on a tryout basis to see how well they write, to see how well they perform the task of writing labels that are straight down the middle. biases in their writing that persists, we will not hire them. again, when people read the labels and see what we are doing, i think it is going to be a lot less of a controversy than you might think because of stuff, at least at this stage at which we are doing it today is
8:24 am
pretty straight up and down. orething is either a hoax not, and having said that, in a country in which x percent of 9/11 thoughtter 9/11 was an inside job from the bush administration, and y percent of the people, including one of the callers who just said they think barack obama was not born in the united states. we will not please everybody. we think we will be credible and useful to a broad swath of this country, and ultimately we hope to provide the same kind of service in other countries. host: you have been in the news business for a long time. did you think we would be further along by now when it comes to news websites, and what you are saying is just a very basics of distinguishing a hoax site from a news site.
8:25 am
that any ofe extent us, including me, were able to give this that kind of thought early on, i guess i did understand that if you create something where anybody can be the publisher, that is, first and foremost, a really good thing because the problems we or fivethere were four media companies that basically .ominated the news that is a good thing. with that good thing came a bad thing. anybody could be a publisher, that means vladimir putin could be a publisher. someone who is obsessed, crazy, and wants to spin out all kinds of conspiracy theories could be a publisher,
8:26 am
and it means that teenagers in macedonia that want to get money postingng ad revenue by crazy headlines on the website, they can also be publishers. so, what we are trying to do is create the tools by which users someline content can have sense of what it is they are about to read. we are not trying to block anything. we are trying to give people a behind,ense of who is and what is behind what they are about to read. host: i wonder if you were surprised by the findings from a moment university poll. fourthan three in americans responded said they believe that the major traditional television and newspaper media outlets report "fake news."
8:27 am
well, i wasn't that surprised because i read the carefully, and you might answer yes to that question if you simply thought in accurate, one story recently on one of the networks or in one of the newspapers. if that is your standard, probably all of us could say they published fake news. i didn't really put much credence in that poll, but i do put credence in the idea that so much distrust in a negative way, but they distrust in the sense they don't know what they are getting when they are looking at headlines on a facebook newsfeed. they just can't help what it is. -- can't tell what it is. it used to be if you walk into a magazine store or went into a newsstand, you could tell by
8:28 am
looking at the racks of magazines and newspapers -- you can tell what brands they were. you can tell the philadelphia inquirer was not the national enquirer. if you're just looking at little headlines in a search or a feed, you don't know that, and if you are younger, and you haven't really grown up around these brands, you don't know that either. host: a bit more from the poll -- 31% of respondents say they believe media outlets spread fake news regularly. 46% say it happens occasionally. is waiting in scottsville, virginia, an independent. you are on with steven brill. caller: isn't it foundational that everything we experience enters our brain through our and evermore efficient communication platforms locked
8:29 am
us away from our logic? and shouldn't be foundational on your website to give us some type of a primer in how our brain works so that people know that they are going to have to logic soregiment their -- like, forlike instance, since genesis we have been warned we have been a serpent in our tree of knowledge, and we were ejected from the garden because of that servant. host: but the idea that news ware?rs should be --ler: well, we have known science has progressed to the point where maximum promotion of
8:30 am
communication platforms has maximizethe ability to emotion so we can't regiment our logic. host: mr. brill? guest: when i heard you begin to ask the question i thought maybe we should have something on our website or some link to some of the very good material that some of the media literacy groups are publishing that are primers in how to read stories and look for fakery. i think that is a pretty good idea. host: who are some of those media literacy groups that you look to for guidance in what you are doing? guest: well, they are cropping up all over the place. the shoring teen center. the kennedy school is working on this.
8:31 am
i am going to get in trouble because i will screw up their name -- i think it is called, literally, the media literacy group. news literacy. there are all kinds of groups associated, sometimes around some of the educational institutions, and some of them are independent nonprofits that have been doing this for a long time. mandate that they took on was to help middle school kids and high school kids, you know, read stuff more discerning the. l. discerning ynow it is becoming much broader project -- problem. host: what is the trust project? guest: that is a project supported by google, facebook, and others, that is attempting to get, in their case, mostly
8:32 am
onlineers that have gone -- newspaper news organizations to adhere to certain standards from accountability and transparency. newspaper'so to the website, let open -- like "the washington post," one of their standards of transparency is do you have a bio of the journalist who wrote the story you just see howthat you can long that journalist has been on the beat, how much experience he or she has? what we are doing with them is we're going to use participation in the trust project as one of the indicators that we use in forming our ratings. host: other indicators -- whether the website >> basic xck whether it is publishing
8:33 am
fake news, deceptive headlines -- you can see all the 11 indicators that newsguard will be using on their website. again, it is angie is here in bc. a democrat. good morning. caller: hi. good morning. what an interesting show. i have a question. interested inlso american lawyer and court tv previously. how does your group maintain ,bjective journalism standards or how do you present partisan answering your company -- entering your company?
8:34 am
what do you use as a preventive measure from allowing partisan politics to overrule journalism standards? guest: well, i think the first part of your question was something to do with the american lawyer and court tv, both of which i sold now 20 years ago. i've nothing to do with them. so i am independent of them. again, i don't think this is a matter of partisan politics. that it isthe extent registered, that gordon crow is my partner -- he is known as a conservative republican. i am not known as anything, i think, based on the journalism i have done. i am known as a critic of the health care industry. i am not sure if that is republican or democratic. i am known as a critic of the teachers unions. that thature anymore
8:35 am
is a republican or democratic position, since there are democrats that also favor the kind of education reform that i have written a book about. we will keep politics from entering this by being totally transparent about what we do. if one of the publishers to whom we give a red rating, or to whom we say they are not adhering to one of our standards, if they have a complaint, we will publish the complaint, answer the complaint. and i don't think it is going to break down in republican or democratic lines at all. know, the that, you hoax story that happened before the election that said the pope was endorsing mr. trump -- saying that that is a hoax website, is that a republican
8:36 am
position? do the republicans actually think the pope did endorse trump? is that a democratic position? i don't know. i don't think this is going to be nearly as partisan as it might seem at first look. host: would you hire a reporter or --right part" breitbart or "washington post" to write your nutrition level -- or "huffington post" to write your nutrition labels? guest: we have been recruiting from groups suggesting people we can hire. the answer, would i hire someone from "the huffington post," it depends on who the person is. would i hire someone from "breitbart," it depends on who the person is. host: less than 10 minutes left. guest: i can tell you will not
8:37 am
see the mission of "breitbart" or the mission of "huffington post" reflected in the work newsguard does. host: less than 10 minutes with steven brill. we'll get to as many of your calls as we can really haven't. teresa has been waiting for a while in tennessee. republican. go ahead. seconds toe me a few make it fit in. you showed your liberal bias in your first few sentences when you said cnn is not fake news. to pedal fakenown news. "hands up don't shoot" is one indicator. in an article in 2014 it said newsguard is a startup company and rating the reliability of thousands of news
8:38 am
sources, and it wants to sell , so are you a for profit? get theere did you story you are reading from? caller: from cnn money. are you a for-profit data mining organization? guest: we are not mining -- we are mining data online can we are not mining consumer's data. we are not mining consumer's data. .ou also, i think, misquoted me i did not say anything about whether cnn was fake news or not -- what i did say, and i stand by it -- i said i think whatever you think of cnn, it is not the propaganda arm of vladimir putin.
8:39 am
i don't think you disagree with that. i don't think anybody disagrees with that. as far as data mining, we are not data mining anything. we are a for-profit company. we think the best way to attract talent and keep talent is to be a for-profit company, and we don't think -- it is surprising to hear somebody call in from the republican line worrying about a for-profit company. host: st. louis, missouri. roy is an independent. caller: congratulations and good morning. thank you. this is a very interesting topic. mr. brill, i appreciate anything you are doing. guest: thank you. caller: the main problem or question i have, a lot of these people that are calling in, or some of them, they are probably followers -- they will watch a sinclair broadcasting daily news feed where they apparently are dictated scripts to read about
8:40 am
-- news, and then you have which president trump is supporting, by the way -- then on the other hand, you have at&t , which is trying to merge with cnn, and he is trying to put the kibosh on that deal because he does not like cnn telling the news. we are in a real quandary. we need people like you to step up. and i am very concerned about the russian involvement in fake , the trolls,bots and everything that has gone on, especially the last election, which was horrible. i think the american people will see through what was going on. i appreciate what you are doing. could you comment on the sinclair broadcasting issue and the cnn/at&t merger issue. host: we got it, right. thanks for the question. guest: i am going to really disappoint you. when i -- this may have been
8:41 am
deliberate on their part, clever on their part, but if you read -- just read a transcript of the sinclair editorial that they made their anchors read -- let's separate the question of whether someone should dictate dozens of anchors all over the country should be reading the same editorial, but if you read a transcript of that editorial, it is an attack on fake news. attack onad it as an fake news that is put out by the right, the far right, were put out by the far left. just one part of what they said in those broadcasts -- "they said they were concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one-sided news stories. plaguing our country. our commitment is to actual reporting.
8:42 am
right. depending on your view of the world, you could listen to those sentences and you could say they are attacking fox news or msnbc. depending on your view of the world, that would be how you might respond to that. the way newsguard will deal with the question of sinclair broadcasting is they have -- what is it, 143 or 243 local television stations. they each have a website. to job, our mandate is review, read, and rate each of those news websites affiliated with each of their local stations. so, if they have a local station in milwaukee that reports, you know, news of police actions, fires, the local zoning board, the local mayoral election as news, they will get a green.
8:43 am
we might mention in the nutrition label that the parent company is sinclair broadcasting which generated controversy and blah,ecause of blah, blah, but that station will get a green. add sometion label may color and elaborate on what their ownership is. so, that is how we're going to deal with sinclair. host: if all goes according to plan, when will we start seeing these red and green ratings pop up? guest: sometime in the fall and certainly in time for the midterm elections. host: we have time for one or two more calls. rob has been waiting in austin. democrat. go ahead. caller: yes. i just want to thank you. i think you will be doing a great service to our country. we need something to report the facts, no bias, just report it as it is.
8:44 am
i wanted to ask what you thought a source of good o" fact, or"politic wikipedia -- is that a good source? guest: i don't want to be commenting on individual sites until we have gone through the process of having professional analysts, journalists we are hiring, read them, go through the criteria. telling you we are going to raise serious, if i simplyisis and responded by saying oh, g, site,ico" is a terrific that would not be in keeping with what we are trying to do. the one thing i will say about wikipedia, which brings up another issue we have not grappled with that we need to figure out the answer to --
8:45 am
wikipedia, as you know, is, kind of, a wisdom of the crowd, kind of, process, where members of editudience can go in and entries on wikipedia. some of that might be reliable. some of that might be quite reliable. we have not figured out how we will do with those kinds of questions yet. host: mr. brill, we will leave it there. our viewers can continue to check out newsguardtechnology on twitter. thank for your time. guest: you are welcome. host: next on "washington journal," we continued to the discussion on fake news and the state of journalism. armstrong williams will be here in just a moment. we will be right back. ♪ "sunday on c-span "q&a," a
8:46 am
theoretical physicist and author talks about his career in science and his latest book "the future of humanity." nature'srm of mother extension. if you dig under our feet right now you will see the bones of the 99.9% that no longer walk the face of the earth. we are different. we have self-awareness. we can see the future. we plot, scheme, plan, so perhaps we will evade this conundrum and maybe survive, but we need an insurance policy. that is where this diff this book is -- this book is different from other books. many talk about the steps, but what is the goal -- what is the pot of gold? >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. this weekend on c-span, saturday at 8:30 p.m. eastern, the 50th anniversary of "60 minutes," and
8:47 am
sunday at 9:30 p.m. eastern, hillary clinton at rutgers university institute of politics. on booktv on c-span2, saturday p.m., the annual national black writers conference. talkingt 1:00 p.m., new book onua's tribalism in america. eastern,at 10:00 a.m. the 50th anniversary of martin luther king junior. sunday at five: 10:00 p.m., walter star talks about edwin linkedin -- lincoln's assassination and the aftermath. wednesday, facebook ceo mark zuckerberg testifies on
8:48 am
facebook's handling of use information and data privacy. c-span3,e coverage on and, and listen live with the c-span radio app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: armstrong williams is back with us as we continue the discussion about fake news and the state of journalism. on the term of fake news, how do you define that? guest: well, it is deceptive. it is misleading. you are more concerned about your agenda than you are about the truth and the facts, and it happens on all spectrums -- the left and the right. when the things that people should always be guaranteed is when they listen to satellite radio, whether it is serious or broadcast networks, or paid tv
8:49 am
providers, is that what you are reporting is the fact, the truth -- sometimes you can get your facts wrong. your sources can mislead you, all right lie to you and manipulate you because they have an agenda, but you have an obligation to correct immediately or two that the source of much as possible. if there is any inclination the story does not add up and may not be verifiable, you should can the story. when we talk about the threats to journalism today and fake news, are you more concerned about misinformation or editorial bias creeping into new stories? guest: listen, i don't think, john, facebook is in the news today -- along with google -- they are in the spotlight. this is not unusual position they find themselves in. there is so much under scrutiny today that would have been
8:50 am
unimaginable a couple of years ago, and with cambridge analytica, and what has, with facebook, i ask this question. what facebook has done, they have done it through algorithms. no different than what newspapers, cable networks do in the editorial room. they decide what is going to go on the air. they decide the importance of a story. is when youmeans are in a position as an executive producer and you are sort of,networks, you, have a lot of influence because there is no such thing as freedom of speech in my opinion unless you own the media. what i try to do as the broadcast owner of television stations across the country, look, ia columnist -- am conservative. i am unapologetic about the fact i am a third-generation republican. my views are about my upbringing. i grew up in a strong
8:51 am
pentecostal faith. my parents believe in god, the 10 commandments of the bible. that ships my value system, but as a media owner and as a writer , i want to remain neutral in what i bring to the marketplace of ideal and -- ideas and of journalism and commentary. no matter how i may feel about guns, and i'm a licensed gun owner, i try to keep my personal opinions and feelings out of my writing, reporting, and out of assignments we get to television stations across the country. and guess what, john, this is very difficult. we all have biases. we all believe we have a certain vision of how the world should run, and what we believe is what we think is right. what is unfortunate, and what has happened today -- i used to be one of these people -- are invested so much on the red, believing the republican party, the conservative party, their ideas, and i believe in the
8:52 am
targeted -- the party. until i went through no child left behind, i realized i lost my identity. you are here to give both sides and allow people to come to their own conclusions. host: you mentioned the guidance you get to television stations that you own. can you talk about the process and put on the television station owner hat for a second? what is the guidance -- specific stories they should cover, trends in the media you think the audience cares about? host: i'm glad you asked that quick -- guest: i am you asked that question. the newsrooms, whether we buy in michigan, birmingham -- las vegas, nevada -- host: it is seven stations you have. guest: basically you say it is
8:53 am
liberal. i try not to get involved in a newsroom. you will not hear me on the phone saying we should run this story, do that story. i think what cnn labeled some of the sinclair anchors as zombies is unfair and downright silly. why do i mention sinclair broadcasting -- were not for david smith on the sinclair broadcasting group, i would not be on television groups -- stations across the country. sinclair broadcasting group gave me that opportunity. you have to be careful. you don't want a heavy hand in the newsroom. i know onalists that the left and the right really want to have integrity. they really want to do what is right. they really want to be fair and honorable in their reporting, which is very difficult sometimes. so, the newsroom you leave alone. what you do have -- you have what is called commentary. sometimes at the end of my
8:54 am
broadcast i may offer a 30-minute commentary. i feel so strongly about what is going on with guns, going on in florida, with terrorism, the economy, daca -- i don't want it to spill out into my newsroom. i will step away and offer a commentary that is my own where i give my opinion. you will see those commentaries -- it is unscripted, my opinion, it is what i believe. it never spills over to the news department because i have the opportunity included on other shows that i do. host: we can talk about that process. armstrong williams with us for the next 35 minutes on "washington journal." phone numbers, if you want to join the conversation -- host: it is a few was want to check out your recent pieces and some of your work.
8:55 am
we start with miriam in aberdeen this morning. good morning. caller: good morning. it is marion. back in 2013, when i was watching channel 15 in south carolina because my sister lives in south carolina, and i was interested in what it was going on in her state, and i noticed these hideous looking people -- you expect people on television to be moderately nice-looking -- they start reading scripts. identified this way back then, and i was furious. , j, they weretine featuring the tea party, the heritage foundation, the taxpayer alliance, and it was so insulting to president obama, such fake news, and when i called the news director on a number of occasions, she said well, i have been here for 20 years, though we have been
8:56 am
bought present their broadcasting and there is nothing we can do about it. i am so angry at the general media for taking so long like and i'm york times," glad they are following it, but isn't it late, like five years late? host: well, -- guest: well, the torilla was also our news director. listen -- victoria is also our news directed. listen, john, all news, whether it is abc, the big networks, it is scripted. sometimes it has to do with the litigious society we find ourselves in -- broadcast networks can get sued. cnn, if you watch their anchors, they are reading from a prompter. that is the way it happens. spoonfed to them by producers, staff -- they are never unscripted. that is the way the business works. host: when it comes to your
8:57 am
anchors and the scripts they read on here, how far of do they go to get reviewed? the television it does not come up to the corporate level. you may say i want this commentary on the show. commentary and say i wanted to run my commentary at this time, but separate that from the news. it is all scripted. it is where we find ourselves today. listen -- there are a lot of lawsuits. you imagine when "60 minutes" decided to do the story how manymy daniels lawyers reviewed the script before they went on the air because they want to make sure they do not get sued and want to look at the story carefully. lawyers have a lot of influence. host: the statement from one of the news executives at sinclair after this story came out. edition ofm today's "the new york times" in their continued reporting about the
8:58 am
controversy surrounding sinclair. the executive saying we are not sure about the motivation for the criticism, but we find it curious that we would be attacked for asking news people to remind their audience that unsubstantiated news stories exist on social media that result in an ill-informed public." the specific controversy in what they were talking about in the video that has made the round -- how controversy do think it is? brill, whonk steve i've known for a very long time, said it best earlier on this show. i read verbatim the script. sinclair was not only talking about fox, msnbc, cnn. they said if you see we are doing the same, you take issue with us, our anchors, call us. they want to in store -- restore
8:59 am
integrity to journalism. everyone is impacted by the loss of credibility. don't think just because they group weair broadcast get a pass. we want to say we're not in the business of fake news p we believe in journalistic integrity, standards, honesty and fairness, and we believe we should not be biased. we need to say it, people. one of the things sinclair decided to do -- they decided to do market research if they were to use this particular message on national tv, how would you respond. over 70% of the people who watched that before it went on the air said they would watch our news and more decidedly trust our news. so, it is not about sinclair, but the integrity of the entire industry. host: california. steve is an independent. good morning. steve, are you with us? caller: yes, i am. thank you. host: go ahead. you are on with armstrong williams. caller: well, and when to keep
9:00 am
this short. i am listening, and i am not very educated, but i got to look at you and hear all your words, the best thing i can go go by because once money is involved, big-money, it trickles down and that's power. and skeptical.l the best thing i've learned through life is to believe that everything is a lie. and i go by that, i can judge the truth for myself. a point. makes many people feel the way he does. not that everything is a lie, but everything is suspect. everything is questionable. and at some point you have to remind people, i get in the morning in search for the truth. not for lies and not for deceit. i'm not here to mislead you. i am not here to be a sycophant for the president or anybody
9:01 am
else. i'm here to make sure you understand through our networks and broadcast stations that you can watch us and find that what we report is as close to the truth is you're going to get and there's no bias, no right-leaning or any kind of leaning except towards the truth. this is why you guys do a great job here. you have the republican line, the democratic line and the independent line. every voice matters here. the truth transcends all of it. host: do you think people are too casual about throwing out the term fake news? guest: there's a war between the president and the media. whether people want to admit it president trump has a lot of credibility. and a lot of cachet. and people want to believe their theident and give them benefit of the doubt and i think president trump has said it enough that it's beginning to have the impact. and when you have networks like and msnbc and others having
9:02 am
to retract statements, having to apologize, they get stories wrong. it could be 25% of the time but if that's the 25% of the time that people remember. not the 75% of the time you get the story right. so unfortunately people will remember those stories and with the president and this war and hopefully at some point along the way the mainstream media will at least make an all-out effort to be fair to the president and not to harp on every little petty issue. voters really don't care about -- people did not like donald trump to be there moral compass. they knew exactly what president trump was when he decided to run for office and what the american people are saying is get over it. let us deal with the real issues. host: explain the advice you give to president trump in the column.
9:03 am
make the story was about the oval and more about america. at allthe president has times and understand i respect the office of the presidency and i also respect the president. and i takeesident pride in who we are as americans. thereere are times when are certain things the president really doesn't need to tweet about. he needs to find the discipline, the judgment, the temperature -- the temperament to not always respond because he sets the tone for the country. i don't think he understands the impact that has around the world. the president needs to do a better job of finding in himself to bring the country together instead of always feeling that he has to respond to everything. the president has done a lot of good that often is overlooked. democrats saidth
9:04 am
would be the worst thing since sliced bread. they are more interested in winning and demonizing the president instead of working with him. talking president is about in terms of immigration, restoring credibility and creating jobs and opportunities. even talking about putting the national guard on the border. that may not be the best solution but at least he's proactive. he's being fought at every turn. the president does a lot of good. the bible that i read going up said don't allow your good to be evil spoken of. the president at some point has to focus on the more important issues of this country and the trivial things just leave them alone and move on. sometimes they create more chaos than goodwill. host: armstrong williams taking
9:05 am
your calls. samuel is on the line for republicans in laurel, maryland. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would just like to point out when we talk about fake news it's not only the news itself but also i think as i was listening to the journal this morning there's a lot of bias. we cannot get over that. let me give you an example. march at prime scully's hadsteve a series of news that he was going one after the other. to give you an example the hearing on betsy devos. house hearing highlight in congress. and here was c-span highlighting
9:06 am
all of the stumbles and the from theeraction congresswoman from connecticut. then they talked about mcdougal. the effort with donald trump from the inquirer. in the same section they went on to stormy daniels. know who isi don't the program organizer for even c-span and i listen to it for several years. host: how would you like to have -- that hearing that you are referring to, how would you like to have seen it covered? caller: once in a while can put something positive. let me ask you. i have still yet to hear a primetime morning call on the fisa issue.
9:07 am
the inspector general is looking into whether they should be an independent hearing on this. once there was a morning question to the people should there be another independent counsel looking at this. giving more positive things that he has done i agree with you. there are things the way donald trump does even me as a conservative sometimes i cringe. however when you look at the broader things there are some good things once in a while. anytime you put on cnn, anytime you put on cnn it is all negative. i used to listen to cnn quite a lot. i think when we talk about fake news we also should remember that we are educated. we know what is what. some things that are positive. that's my comment. excellent point.
9:08 am
i am mentioned don't allow your good to be spoken of. if you find something good in somebody, praise it. he's absolutely right. they are trying to put horns on the president. that determines who gets to where the horns and who gets to be evil. and the other label is who gets to be the to good letters -- do-gooders. we have awakened a sleeping giant in this country. the american people are awake and they are not going back to sleep. very insightful. they know not everything donald trump does when he gets up in the morning is bad. do a little balance. stormy care about daniels. they don't care about mcdougal. they don't care about donald trump and what he's done in his sex life. if melania trump is willing to stay with him for better or worse in sickness and in health, that's between him and his wife. many marriages in this country
9:09 am
involves infidelity and betrayal and yet they find a way to patch their wounds together and move on. people want to know what impacts their lives every day. if your television station had a chance to sit down with stormy daniels would you have aired that? guest: i would have no interest in that. absolutely not. i make no apologies about it. to me, why give her that kind of credibility? is she a role model for your kids for america and for parents? she's going back to selling porn videos. i wish she would go away. let them deal with it privately. i don't want to hear from stormy daniels. in augusta,s georgia. caller: good morning. i have been watching mr. williams and of course have andd him over the years
9:10 am
again i'm not taking a political position but the position and the role of media is to do one thing in america and that is to tell the truth. and honestly speaking mr. williams, you are sitting there just simplyutlet, tell the truth. that's all that one needs to do. media has got responsibility. the new york times has had running analysis of lies coming out of the white house. i think there's almost 4000 lies. that is utterly ridiculous. utterly ridiculous. trust?ho do you you mentioned the new york times.
9:11 am
caller: i trust all of them. i watch right-wing, i even look at foreign publications. the reason for that is because it's news. it's news. it's news. for a conservative and let me also point this out historically speaking and mr. williams had an opportunity to do this. the reason why he was a republican and blacks were republicans is simply because his thrustcoln and in the civil war and his so-called emancipation of , i have relatives that are republican. host: we will let armstrong williams speak to why he is a republican. guest: my great great grandparents were republicans. soparents were my heroes and i embraced my parents values and i embrace the party of their choice. caller sayingious
9:12 am
they don't trust anything, that caller when i asked him what news stations he trusts he said he read them all. that's the beauty of c-span. that's why i always come back. i started at c-span. because no one can see any bias here. everyone has a voice. i have tried to duplicate the c-span experience on my nightly series where everybody has a voice. everybody has an opinion. here's what i've learned. the more people get a chance to talk and express their views and realize that journalism are purveyors of the truth where that guy was when he said he starts out believing he's all alive, he begins to change. that is our responsibility to restore the trust and credibility and the institutions that ought not only have we invested so much in the we can
9:13 am
continue to care about the important role it plays in this country. host: i wonder your take on the president's tweets about the washington post and amazon. the president tweeting again this morning just a few minutes ago the fake news washington post, amazon's chief lobbyist has another of many phony headlines. read trump defined as end ads trade penalties to pairs and massive ip theft. typically bad reporting. a declaration of war between our president and the mainstream media. is the washington post fair to the president? do they call it down the middle? i don't necessarily think so. does the president sometimes go overboard in his criticism of jeff bezos and amazon? is there a legitimate argument that jeff bezos amazon is
9:14 am
impacting the u.s. postal service? argument there. there have been corporations that have talked to the president in the white house about the impact amazon is having on their business. that is a legitimate conversation to have on how to make the situation better. when it begins to become and indicative on both sides there are no winners in the process. host: what do you think about the president picking a fight with a specific headline in a specific newspaper on a specific morning? guest: he does it all the time. earlier it was cnn. it's what he does. it could be nbc. the president did the very same thing during his campaign. the thing about the president is not complicated. he is easily understood. he does not discriminate. he has no special person. when he's irritated about something he thinks it's unfair and his judgment, twitter is his
9:15 am
media organization. it is his way of getting his sure thatt and making people understand where he is and what he thinks about what is being reported in different institutions. guess what, he's never tweeted about c-span. host: armstrong williams twitter handle if they want to check out your twitter presence. robert is in mississippi. line for independents. my name is robert and i am -- host: i'm so sorry, i can't understand that. please do try to call back on a better line and we will try to get you in to mr. williams. tina's in alabama. republican. go ahead. gentleman, it's an honor
9:16 am
to speak with you. serve as at we principle that there's always evidence for the truth. and anything that we hear we should be discerning, we should be speaking out through his word. what does he intend here. .hat is the evidence for it i find that in the free press you will find people who will find the truth and it will be reported. there's also an enemy of propaganda and i have never before experienced in my 60 years in government that has gone against a party with the force of the government as the tea party was. and experience acknowledging and i appreciate many many voices. but i don't appreciate the propaganda in the mistruths and they will be known. host: how do you discern one from the other? caller: i read many sources.
9:17 am
behaviorsce is in the and what people say. when there's an accusation typically what you can find as soon as that accusation is made thein three or four months one who made the accusation is found guilty of that very accusation because that's what's in his heart. it's just one of those god principles. guest: i want to respond in a different way. i did a show on what do we learn from reading the news. i took the washington post in the new york times and other newspapers and ran it from cover to cover. even though there was not one positive story uplifting. everything is bad. whether you're talking about the democrats, the republicans, the white house. it doesn't matter.
9:18 am
they tend to believe that all we want to read are the horrible , the litigious things going on in our society. i want to go back to what the caller said. that is exactly what you become. just like ben carson. host: you worked on his campaign. guest: new york times had a piece today on david smith which i thought was very fair and very balanced in their reporting about sinclair. i read ther. carson article in the new york times. , this is as good as it gets. about carson, the new chinook, all you ever read about is there's a problem. they are about to be fired.
9:19 am
trying to privatize this. these secretaries spend so much of their time trying to make this country better. doing is dealing with furniture. you never hear the good that happens that these agencies. that's the problem. host: give me an example of good news we missed this week. guest: i think the president whether you like it a lot has said, i tried everything -- it appears since this fall may not be built and congress is not going to support me, i'm going to do something. you may not like what am going to do it i'm going to ask the national guard to protect our borders and protect us against would-be criminals, drug trafficking and other offenders. host: you don't think that story was covered today? guest: you asked me about good news. i'm telling you about what was in the news that was good. it's not unprecedented. george bush and barack obama have done it. you will be hard-pressed to find
9:20 am
this kind of good news in the media anymore and while you may criticize the likes of dr. carson and other people in the white house also take the time to write about the good that they do to push this country forward. that theed to hear people they elect and are appointed are working for the greater good a need to see it on tv. it reaffirmed their belief in what we call democracy. the: you think the folks in agencies are doing enough to get the good news out? could they be doing more? guest: yes. they don't want to print it. they are not interested. dogs.dia are like bird they want smell. they want to stink up the place. if you are giving them something that stinks up the place they are interested. host: what do you do on your television stations? do you take time to highlight specific the good news? guest: every day. you must. it is their job to find the good
9:21 am
news. not just for a minute or two. we take segments to talk about the good news. we talk about what the congress does. we talk about it. when i'm on the street talking to every day joe blow they say we really appreciate you giving us hope. that's what it is. hope that not all is lost, not everybody is corrupt, out for themselves and greedy. some people do work for the greater good. host: chad's in baltimore on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i think it's fascinating we're talking about hope here. why do we throw in change which that -- with that, which is the obama slogan which is democratic. my call is about thinking critically because i'm listening to this call. it's going a lot of directions but it's going in one consistent perspective here where the president is good.
9:22 am
the president is doing great things. the tax bill is amazing. peopleetting calls from saying money is part of the influence here when we are talking about credibility calling saying 70% of our people in our study said they would watch our news. everything is driven by credibility and news. but then we talk about the media in general give us something that smells. we want something more about that. to me ask you, do we need take bad things and wipe it under the rug? or do we want to hear the bad stuff so we know what to fix? we are talking about very subjective things here. i don't think the majority of people according to polls that even the president likes to pay attention to or even the voting booths where the populist vote didn't go his way i don't think
9:23 am
he has built a bigger following since he took office which if you want to take that part and run with it then find as opposed to the other things. you are trying to influence a propaganda perspective and of right and left all called you out on it. i'm educated and you need to pay attention to what you're doing. host: we will let armstrong williams respond. appreciate his perspective because here's what he's actually saying. if you are not demonizing and weaponize and the president of the united states and going along with this narrative that we hear every day to the media and all of a sudden you're trying to say we are giving him and you are not reporting and so we can't report on the bad news. sarah things written about president trump in terms of his character and morality that deserves attention. i always believed to have real leadership anywhere it has to be courageous, discipline and righteous.
9:24 am
of thecriticism president in many ways is warranted. all i'm saying is as you criticize him also find the good . not only about the president but democrats in congress, republicans in congress. my argument was not just about republicans in the white house. it was about america. you are going to report those things that give us a little theyce that believes that someday would want to serve in government and capacity. not turn them away like all government does. that's the only point i'm making. host: cheryl, republican. go ahead. caller: it's good to see you again mr. williams. you kind of still my thunder of it when you used the word demonized. because the president is so demonized that a lady was beat up earlier this week simply because she said she's a supporter of the president.
9:25 am
and i do remember louis farrakhan saying the thought control and mind manipulation is practiced by people in the media. it's even more true today. demonize everything about the president and everybody around the president to include secretary carson and all of his cabinet members. there's a cultural difference in the way people look at the media. my family, black family, they talk about media being black news or white news and they think that cnn is more .epublican it's just the way sometimes people even look at the media and the way they view the news. so i'm concerned about the way the president is constantly being demonized.
9:26 am
to the point where there is no respect for not even the hisident but his cabinet, administration and people that support the president are demonized. the point.makes can't evenle who admit that they think the country is making progress. if you support donald trump you have no passion for the poor, you are racist, you are a sellout. your insensitive and you have no idea of what's going on in america. we should never have to apologize for exercising our right to vote and our freedom of choice. host: lancaster, ohio. independent. moana. go ahead. caller: that was mona. host: my daughter has been watching too many disney movies. caller: i've got two questions.
9:27 am
one is for the host. what does -- mean? in the second questions for that sweet guest that you've got there. 90-year-old white woman and i'm in love. with mr. williams. but anyway my question to him is are you what programs -- i don't know where your programs are. guest: i'm flattered. thank you. i am on sirius xm 126 every p.m. andm 6:00 to 8:00 i have a national television show on the sinclair broadcast network. you can check armstrong i know my executives at hhs is going to like the fact that i mentioned that.
9:28 am
you'll find out where all our programs air every day. greg is in jacksonville, florida. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. -- 39 yearear-old watcher of c-span. every 30 days before i'm able to get into a call which is fine. i just want to address some things that armstrong has talked about. with hisfamiliar career as a republican advocate and strategist but i have a andtion for armstrong talking about what i've seen over the years as to the hypocrisy of the republican party. in particular the president has criticized amazon and jeff bezos about not paying taxes. with certain contracts they had with the post office. and people have failed to realize including mr. williams
9:29 am
apparently that the president during his campaign boasted that he has never paid taxes for almost 2530 years. so my question for armstrong and the supporters of the president, do they not feel as though there are some form of hypocrisy the that het has boasted never paid taxes and then he gets on the air and criticizes jeff bezos about not paying taxes? itt really troubles me when comes to the integrity of journalism and the accuracy of journalism and we are talking about fake news. i watch all the stations, too. fox. i have been watching c-span for 39 years. there is hypocrisy that permeates through the republicans. my last comment very quickly. there was all the news about hillary clinton emails and also lack of getting troops into benghazi that captured the american audience from his 18 or
9:30 am
19 months prior to and during the presidential election of this year. again when people look at fake news and who is permeating -- they should also look at the conservative -- side. it's very detrimental to the country. thanks a lot. when you think about hypocrisy it's like a minister and the pope. he preaches fidelity in marriage. preaches righteousness. all the right things. vessels,ind he and sleeping with someone in the church congregation. does that diminish the truth of his message and what they are saying? no. from ministers to politicians we we are hypocrites and sometimes don't practice what they preach and human beings are flawed and they are prone to the same addictions we condemn in
9:31 am
others. it's always easier to condemn somebody else than to find it in ourselves. the point is it doesn't take away the truth of what someone is saying at the time. the caller is right and it's not just on the republican side. in all aspects of society where people are hypocrites. i do think what we all should take away from the day is the hardest work that i do 24 hours a day is working on armstrong williams. being truthful, being reliable, being accountable, being loyal and being fair. i find at the end of the 24 hour cycle armstrong williams is a better person. when armstrong williams is better the world around me is better. need to doing you sometimes is improve yourself and your character and the choices that you make in the world around us will automatically find itself in a better place. host: armstrong williams, thank you.
9:32 am
up next on the washington journal, open phones. any public policy issue you want to talk about. lines for republicans, democrats and independents on your screen. you can start calling in now and we will be right back. ♪ sunday night on afterwards. south carolina republican senator tim scott and congressman trey gowdy discuss their friendship and time in congress. they are interviewed by a former south carolina senator. of the things i enjoyed about having dinner with trey is rarely is the occasion that someone doesn't stop who is not from here and thank him for his service. it's also meaningful and a look intoto take his cranial cavity about the perspective he takes on really
9:33 am
important issues and you'll find he mayickly that while be branded a partisan at times the truth of the matter is his primary objective is truth. works for you, good. if it works against you feel sorry. but he is going to find the truth. that is hard in the city who wants to win i think it's more important in this city than finding the truth. i'm grateful to build a great friendship with someone who is more interested in the truth than winning. >> something really not complementary was written about senator scott in a blog. frankly it was libelous. i just reached the end. we are not going to put up with this anymore. his office in to longworth and went right past the scheduler and said i'm going in to see him and we're going to do something about this. you cannot allow people to say this and do nothing about it. you're right.
9:34 am
i thought this is going to be good. we're going to hack a plan. he said, we are going to pray for him. i said tim, i love you but i ain't praying. he said you sit here with me while i do. he sat there and he prayed for a .ritic by name there are not many people that do that. >> watch afterwards sunday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span twos book tv. washington journal continues. host: it's open phones on the washington journal. any public policy issue you want to talk about now is the time. (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8002 independents. we will be on the phones until 10:00 this morning. two stories on a topic we often return to.
9:35 am
that is the subject of opioid addiction in this country. role called reporting today that the senate health panel yesterday released a discussion draft intended to curb opioid addiction. the development comes as other house and senate committees are preparing their own legislation. the senate health education labor and pension committee plans to discuss the legislation at an upcoming hearing next week on april 11. the panel has already held six different hearings so far. this congress featuring representatives from the fda, national institutes of health, the cdc as well as governors from states affected by the crisis. one other story out this morning from npr with opioid related deaths continuing to climb in this country, naloxone which can reverse overdoses has become an important part of the public health response. on thursday the u.s. surgeon general issued an advisory that
9:36 am
encouraged more people to carry naloxone. police officers and emts often have it at the ready. access to the drug for the general public has been used in the past few years as well. the medicine now available at retail pharmacies in most states without prescription between 2013 and 2015. researchers found a tenfold increase in naloxone sold by retail pharmacies. if you want to read more on that stories it's at in clearwater florida, line for democrats. good morning. caller: originally i was going to talk about media. do i have to talk about the opioid crisis? host: you can talk about whatever you want. it's open phones. caller: i used to work for the media and do media research. weird watching all
9:37 am
this stuff happen now. it's actually fairly common for companies to sell information. i don't think people actually realize how much information is public record. be outraged about this anyway. that's the whole point of what edward snowden was trying to do and i think he had more faith in humanity than a lot of people do nowadays. i think he thought the public was going to do more with the information. --ust think people need to had a good point. the more self-aware that you are the better you know yourself better things are going to be and then you try to put that out into the world. going in and out. we will take your point. this story is dominating some front-page headlines in national papers. facebook on wednesday said the data of up to 87 million users
9:38 am
may have been improperly shared with a political consulting firm connected to the president during the 2016 election. a figure far higher than the estimated 50 million that had been widely cited since the late was reported last month. 's testify next week in congress. he announced that facebook would offer all its users the same tools and controls required under european privacy rules. they give people more control over how companies use their digital data. is in pennsylvania. independent. go ahead. williams is aong guest and an arbiter of what's congress het's have is so loaded. i don't know if you remember and not. he took a quarter of a million dollars in under the table he was a regular
9:39 am
broadcast show host. from the bush administration. he's crooked for the last 15 to 18 years. to talk about sinclair and fox is having anything to do with the truth is a joke. it's just a joke. 3000 lies, anybody that lies for everything that comes out of his mouth is alive. host: who would you prefer to hear from on this topic? who do you think is a good arbiter? caller: to determine both right and left? host: who would be a good guest on the subject? i would put the new york times, the washington post, the examiner and some other right-wing paper on a panel. the only way this could be resolved or even some truth be garnered from it is to have a panel. a bited to do that quite and you have stopped doing that. it's the only way to get anyone
9:40 am
knew the truth. because it has appeared right now. we do have roundtable discussions quite often on the washington journal. josh is in seaside, california. line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. the person just before me did take my thunder because he said identical to what i wanted to say. token, i used to have a lot of respect for you. i mean a lot to it by the same token you can get a guy like armstrong williams sit up and live. and do not call them on it. be like the previous color was saying. there used to be a time when you guys would call a person out when you know they are lying.
9:41 am
i noticed that most of these guys would not come on the show if they got somebody on there that's going to go ahead and critique what they are saying. actuallyy be would make sure that there telling the truth and i noticed that you can't get a person to come on man that had somebody that's going to go ahead and speak the truth to them. c-span change their mind in the future and try to get people on this going to be reliable. because these guys are lying as much as trump. thank you, john. rate is in chicago. republican. go ahead. caller: yes sir. good morning. we talk about lying. but why is it that the black caucus, all of the black caucus
9:42 am
called david duke a racial thicket and yet 21 of them at least don't call reverend farrakhan a racial bigot? david duke only wants the people out of the country and he wants white christians in this country only. where is farrakhan he wants to send all jews and white people to hell. host: are you a supporter of david duke? we lost him. andrea is in new york city. independent. go ahead. caller: good morning. is theyuld like to say talk about the economy here. and you have most of the people living in poverty. people with minimum wage urban seven dollars and $.50. nine dollars and $12. ceos andall of these
9:43 am
all these people on the news making 300% more than anybody is making on minimum wage. lobbyists going to washington and they're the ones that determine the rules and laws they are doing. have politicians that articulate values but they don't defend them. this is very ridiculous. you go to the street right now and every state is like a war zone. every time you see a police man have to be in danger and you are not respected and you are not helped. it is ridiculous to see what is happening in this country. now you have a president right mr. obama that made a mistake thing that you could see your doctor for your health plan and they call them and they say you are lying. person,ng pathological a rapist and person that lives every day and you don't have nobody say anything about him.
9:44 am
somebody that has never been in the military. i have been in the military. about,ing that he talks he articulates -- people's values but don't defend it. that is terrible. i would like to see the change next election. to do something to change the entire washington, d.c. representative with republicans. but they don't defend nobody. that andre in new york city. about 15 minutes left in this open phone segment on the washington journal. i want to keep you updated on what's happening on the c-span networks later today. army secretary mark esper will discuss force posture and readiness. live coverage from that heritage foundation event starting at 10:00 a.m. in about 15 minutes on c-span. panelists at the
9:45 am
hudson institute will discuss .he iran nuclear deal live coverage begins at new here on c-span. president trump is holding a roundtable discussion on tax reform in west virginia. that expected to happen around 2:10 eastern. you can listen to it on the c-span radio app. one more for you today. former mexican president vicente fox and nigel frank, the former u.k. independence party leader will debate nationalism and globalism at the university of maryland college park. live coverage begins at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and again on and on the c-span radio app. a lot going on today on c-span. check in with us all day long. matt is in germantown, maryland.
9:46 am
line for democrats. good morning. caller: the comment i want to make is we talk about fake news. you had a gentleman on earlier basically trying to come out with a market-based way to deal with pointing out fake news and maybe writing the nutritional label. moree making things far complicated. the republican party prides itself as the party of law and order. constitution we all have freedom of speech but that does not mean you can scream fire, fire, fire. hold people who write fake news and people who tell lies in public and
9:47 am
-- having anepting effect on public opinion's and decisions, why don't hold them criminally liable, give them a window of opportunity to correct .hemselves we should be held criminally liable for telling lies. is that an argument for loosening libel/slander laws in the country? caller: it could be something like that. heldnk people should be liable for telling lies in public. when you tell lies to the public and have to have a set on how the election turns out what do -- tell lies to affect
9:48 am
public support. you should be held liable. host: who should be the arbiter of that? caller: well the thing is that why we have the fcc. that's why we have the government. the government should investigate and if they find you are telling a lie you should be held liable. criminally. brian is in michigan. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. what we need is to look at theally as before even founding of the constitution is emptor is that the buyer be aware. of buyer be aware everything. everything you eat. everything you buy.
9:49 am
whether it's news this applies to that. you have to use your head. you just have to. it's up to you and that's part of freedom. we can set different standards. i believe we should start at the white house press corps. benchmarkd have as a a degree in print journalism. that will start to elevate the conversation. mcdonald's where you can drive in and you know what you are going to get. life is not like that. it's caveat emptor. capitalism is the form of our government. it has been written that it's the worst form of government with the exception of everything else. ,ou have to use your heads america. can't just believe everything that you hear or read.
9:50 am
more of your calls in just a second. want to keep you updated on some of the ongoing teacher strikes around the country. this story in today's washington times focusing on the strikes in oklahoma. governor mary fallin compared teacher strikes for more classroom funding to a teenage kid that once a better car as schools throughout the state plan to close for a fourth in protests over education funding that have spread to several republican states. governor fallin endorsed hundreds of millions of dollars in tax increases to fund public schools and give teachers a raise of 15 to 18%. that's forcing them to walk a fine line in the months before the midterm elections between andtituents angry over cuts
9:51 am
constituents who want smaller government and lower taxes. , the democrat.c. good morning. echor: i just wanted to the sentiment of the previous callers. a little disappointed with the choice to have armstrong williams on. counterbalance the strictly partisan arguments that he's putting forward. i listen to c-span because i appreciate hearing all the different. a little disappointed we didn't have anybody on their balancing out his strongly partisan perspective. host: what did you think of our other guests, steven brill in the website that he's working on to fight fake news? we lost truman. if you missed either of our segments this morning they should already be online at
9:52 am if you want to go back and watch them. in georgia, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say something about this gun shooting. i'm saying that these people doing this for publicity. overwanted my picture all tv i would just make some radical statement. so i think the world is getting -- can't tell the adults what to do. thated to teach kids parents need to teach kids. these children go to school and they don't get to -- the right attention and they ain't making
9:53 am
good grades and their parents don't care what's happened to them. they want to get world-renowned news. and shooto out people. it should be handled on a local basis and the sheriff and police and fbi and all of that should be taken care of it. worse thanaking it ever. host: richard is in alabama. a republican. good morning. i would like to say that would be powell probably one of the best to give the sides of the story on your show. secondly i will give a little secret to everybody. the way to find out the truth, walk out your door and just live in america. you will see the truth.
9:54 am
anydon't have to look at new show or anything like that. unfortunately, the police today are not well trained. supposed to make sure that the citizen gets home safe, not them. they are supposed to get in front. not in back. that's all i have to say. maurice is in michigan on the line for independence. what's on your mind? i've been watching c-span for quite a while. i'm in my 80's and i'm -- these programs don't seem to admit that the elephant in the room is the national debt. problem considered a
9:55 am
that everybody should be paying attention to. i think we endured the presidency of obama for eight years and we are finding out that he never was working for the american people. i don't know who he was working for in fact. but i'm really concerned about the iranian deal he made and i'm beginning to think that we elected the equivalent of a benedict arnold. that's about all i have to say. now 21he u.s. debt dollars, 117 billion and counting. do you think the debt was a big of the 2016 presidential campaign and do you think it will be a big part of
9:56 am
the 2020 campaign? caller: i'm sure it was part of the decision that everybody made to change the way our government was going. i'm not sure that the election of trump in itself is going to make the big correction. i know one thing. we can't continue to use the washington trained idiots to run our country. the swamp is worse than a swamp. it's a cesspool. host: do you think it has been drained of it in the past 14 or 15 months? caller: not enough. we've got to stop returning the toe idiots of both parties washington. freddie is in maryland. life are republicans. good morning. caller: good morning.
9:57 am
one of your guests was talking about david duke and reverend farrakhan. people need to understand that the country is really divided. it's ridiculous to come online and try to think that you are right here at 50% of the country thinks otherwise. if you see any republican congressman saying something good about david duke everybody is going wide. we have like six democrat comes when you are so close to farrakhan. nobody talks about it. i'm saying this as a black man. is so it's terrible. this country is so divided. i was a trump supporter and i can tell the democrat out there of the black vote,
9:58 am
we are working towards 20%. that's all you need to be the next president in 2020. the more you hate him, the more we like him. thank you. host: carl is on the line for democrats. during the swamp, the person asked me what i was going to ask. if you want to watch fake news watch any sinclair channel. they run by a script. you asked about draining the swamp. thing -- youwamp have the swamp thing running the government right now. he's getting rich. all of his companies. every time they stay at their golf courses they charge the government doubled the price. this is crazy and you had o'keefe on there. talk about fake news. what's going on with washington journal now? you guys have changed ever since the young lady i forget her name came on she first
9:59 am
says, these are going to make great republican talking points. i forget her name. host: would you have preferred not to have james o'keefe? caller: you should put on that he's a felon in california. please. i love listening to everybody but you have to notify people that this guy makes -- he's not a journalist. he's not anything close to it. host: i believe he was asked about that felony charge and his history with run-ins with law enforcement. caller: and what was his answer? host: you can go back and watch his answer. caller: i did watch it. it wasn't a truthful answer. ift: it's at viewers want to watch any of our segments as we try to present
10:00 am
all sides and opinions. just a couple minutes left before we end our program today. time for a few more calls. george in elkridge, maryland. independent. go ahead. independent. been watching washington journal this morning, c-span and the gentleman doing the commentary, i hate to say it, he needs to get maybe some fact checks while he is talking on the air. people come on and make statements and it is apparent that they follow fake news and he does not make any commentary to set them straight. one of the things is basically money toma giving away the iranians, which she did -- he did, but he did not elaborate
10:01 am
on why and how it took lace. the people believe you just took money and gave it to them without any cause. informed, they are not on why the iranian deal took place, or why the money was given over. and he just does not make any commentary on it and that people believe what they want to believe. if you are going to have a program like this, they should , review some of these statement people are making and try to put the information out there on why, overow things take place things that we do. fact checking on the fly, always an imprecise process. we tried to do the best weekend but you mentioned fake news earlier. how do you define fake news?
10:02 am
we lost george. rachel is in maryland. for democrats. caller: yes, john. ,he gentleman that just called voiced the same opinion i was going to make. the fact that the gentleman that called and said president obama gave iran that money. he could be corrected because somebody else called and said the same thing a couple weeks ago. if it isnot true -- not true, it should be corrected. i agree 100% with the other caller that just called in. host: roy in wilmington, north carolina. independent. caller: i just wanted to talk about, basically, the power that corporations have right now over our government.
10:03 am
i am seeing these tech companies , they are essentially their own nationstate. there is a different level of accountability in the u.k., for example with facebook, what they can do with our data. it is different in the u.k. as it is in america. curious, as long as we are going to consider corporations essentially people, at what point do we start punishing corporations like people? if a person is a felon, their life is markedly different and we should treat corporations the same way. another example is wells fargo. they are a bank, essentially gambling with our money. more to the point, they are creating false statistics and well by using our data. they have been creating these -- itbank accounts happened to me. i am curious, as a nation, we have all of these other problems
10:04 am
that are huge, but this is something that is working. is this just a problem of capitalism? what do we do about this? host: we will end and therefore today on washington journal. we will continue tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern, 4:00 this effect. now we go to the heritage foundation. army secretary mark esper is set to discuss army force posture and readiness. live coverage beginning in just a minute, here on c-span. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018]
10:05 am
10:06 am
10:07 am
>> we are live at the heritage foundation this morning, awaiting remark from army secretary mark esper on posture and readiness for the army. congress recently passed a budget that has significantly increased the defense budget. this event is at the heritage foundation, just about to get underway here, live on c-span. >> we will have to remind everyone, the cell phones must be turned off today.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on