Skip to main content

tv   After Words Alex Marlow Breaking the News  CSPAN  August 6, 2021 11:51pm-12:50am EDT

11:51 pm
>> what is the instrumental purpose of this book? what do host: what is the instrumental purpose of this book? what you hope to accomplish or who do you hope to reach? >> i would like to hope the book will accomplish a couple of things. first of all i know realistically it will be read by more conservatives than people who are independent or liberal. i get two things out of it. first of all get arguments they can use in debate they may or may not be having but i'm optimistic in the future we will return to an era where we can have a more robust public discourse of dialogue.
11:52 pm
and second not unessential is i it's entertaining and people enjoy learning the things i have been researching the last couple of years. host: so i will summarize the and the three main ways but within the newsroom by the agenda driven journalist you don't admit they are agenda driven once from the boardroom through corporate corruption and deals andnd then also crime without from people like you from breitbart that are gleefully throwing rocks at the structures so talk about that who may not be fully aware of what breitbart does and the role of the independent right of center media ecosystem. host: on balance it covers
11:53 pm
more than the latter but it is fun to go through the history because largely we have been misconstrued. i don't think we have been given a fair shake and that's peppered throughout the book it's i mostly nmr because i was the first employee but a lot of that has been dishonest and it's one of those things where people heard some of them like all to write that is associated with anti-semitism we happen to be owned by jews we have orthodox of the jews on staff the senior editor is orthodox jew and the company was founded in israel pretty much 100 percent pro israel the idea was started in israel so it is so absurd but it is repeated over and over and in pointing that out i think it is worthwhile.
11:54 pm
but to the essence of your question, i do think that so long as there is free speech in america and first amendment not entirely controlled by a silicon valley there willl be dissident voices that are able to penetrate into the national dialogue without having the institutional backing of a corporation. at the level of corporate media we havef right now is too much. i would be shocked if anyone disagreed with that thesis long enough. but with the rise of podcasting and alternative media sources thriving over the last decade it has left and an indelible mark with the credibility and it is undeniable. host: is their attention between the way the news is broken in a good way. that's a great but in the way
11:55 pm
it is also bad because it is a critiqueue is there a natural tension between the brokenness of news quick. >> it is a tragic story because we would love for our media to be heroes little they are portrayed in popular culture. that is largely controlled by people of the same political worldview as those who control our news media. we want to portray people as heroes and to stop machinations of ill will within society but yet that's not what it is right now right now the establishment media is twitter likes andan conformity to the ostp group and serving gigantic corporations which are multinational they are not that focused on american exceptionalism or what it means to be american and - - at all that the fact the news
11:56 pm
has been broken by these upstarts that i champion, it is a good thing in a way this is possible in america but by and large itt would be great if we can look at corporate media and trust them to a certain degree i think trust of that corporate outlets has eroded so much and it's not a great thing that has happened. >> you write in the first chapter a victory lap over the way that you co-opted and turned around the hillary clinton phrase and a journalistic establishment phrase in 2016 of fake news and then to use that so talk about that timeline. >> this is straight out of the breitbart playbook it's my baby i'm glad you asked i
11:57 pm
never thought i would get any type of credit. but when hillary started to use the term fake news which we had seen floating around in the left-wing obama circles we start to see the concept. late i know exactly what's going to happen. this will be something that is used to brand people like the aforementioned and all to write or white nationalist people don't necessarily know the leaders of these movements or how powerful they are. but if you branch someone or tarnish someone it's hard to wash that off of you. i knew hillary clinton would do that specifically with breitbart not because it put
11:58 pm
out fak news that we have been effective so we've always been the tip of the spirit in terms of test driving attacks on conservative media outlets. we are the biggest and probably only fox is bigger and then as a corporate out letter slightly different model. it was supposed to be a celebration for harry reid think it was a retirement celebration she use the term over ander over thinking this would break through. and i thought maybe she was thinking about breitbart and i said we will repurpose this and put it on every false story that comes out of the establishment and then we will do t fake news and co-opted the expression and then donald
11:59 pm
trump got into it with jim acosta about a month or two later and then says you are fake news to jim acosta and then he thought that was the most hilarious thing ever and that became his phrase and he ran with that but it did begin to what benefits the right as opposed to whatt would attack us. host: you did just complained they were using it to tarnish groups of people is that not what you are doing here with the media? are you not tarnishing them in a collective way? >> there are two components of that. the first part is they started it if they start to brand us with fake news and go way out of their way to try to diminish breitbart's influence and constantly if we get any
12:00 am
attention it's always negative never anything positive they are inn a battle against us. so what we do is we use the term but we have to earn it we are not calling liberal opinions fake news because we don't agree with the opinion we wait until there is a falsehood but if the term is used by hillary clinton to use these broad strokes of people putting out fake news they were not site the falsehood. so there's not an equivalent thing. first of all the retaliatory nature is important. we are not looking to pick fights with people that looking to reactr to people who come after us or our readers. . . . .
12:01 am
i think of that as the new york times, they have a length of priorities they use in order to that element of it. a lot of people act like it's obvious what should be the front page story who are the heroes and villains. their patterns are layout and is probably about 15 or so rules that i noted how it goes to the new york times. they would get photos on the front page and a dark bottle. they are writing a story that is a narrative fornd example, trump did something bad or coronavirus is going to ravage all society they feel like they can back up and they would put on the front page andd put the argument or
12:02 am
piece of information that fit the narrative at the top of the article but when it comes out for example, one example of how i signed the book a, somebody in florida was going to reopen disney world last summer. it was pointed create a super spreader event. all these outlets big and bold and super spreader offense, this is horrible, everyone is going to die. when it turned out weeks later that there was no evidence of any super spreader event, for stories had a different page and eventually they started to trickle out barely months later and there are front-page stories and stories buried within the paper. you start seeing these patterns and i think it's fun to show i see what they are doing their mothers information that contradicts what they are saying so they might include, for just.
12:03 am
reporter: at the top and i do try to make it a little more clear but it's fun and you can take a picturear of it with your phone and when you read the new york times, it's like a game almost. >> you write about in the book and there's a couple pieces about thehe tweets staffers they made before they joined the times when they were in college, controversial posts, what's the significance of that, why should we be talking about the collegians of new york times staffers? >> one of the examples? we met a couple from where tom wright -- sorry do you know if i'm mispronouncing your name. i don't have them in front of me but they were not correct. why is this worthy of talking about in the context of modern-day new york times?
12:04 am
>> it's not about the individuals in most cases. in some cases it's extreme and they rise at such high level. they are still over the top and they've not been retracted. >> and she did those at least some of those while staffer. >> or at least right before. it is purely hypocrisy and i say breitbart has been fending off claims to somatic despite orthodox jews who edit the site and jews who own the company and admitted toward israel one 100% of the time and expense enabled by the establishment who employs people who have have these thoughts in theed past and have not had to address them so they were fired, i don't think they should have been fired. i would not have called for his
12:05 am
fiery but i think to say they pose as an authority on anti-semitism when they employ people like that they are the ones calling walls and strikes. the case it makes at a broader level they portray themselves as neutral empires was going on in america and international flight and it's not true, they are not neutral at all. >> are you not, in mostal circumstances, protruding to the outrage archaeology where people dig through social media dumpster of people in the past, is not a good place for us to go to regardless of hypocrisy? should i be seeing what terrible things they wrote in high school to bring down breitbart once and for all parts. >> it's a tough decision in the newsroom because i'm stuck between a rock and a hard place because the left going to engage in this behavior. if we extend courtesy to them that everything should be off-limits which the lady got
12:06 am
fired from her job at vote when she was 17, that was outrageous and i think i said publicly on my national radio show should not have left the job and she shouldn't have to put out a statement about it as well. she should have set i was 17 years old and i want you to take a hike but i do think there's only two choices. either of them use the tactic to let them destroy people in my audience or my staff and no pushback at all or do it in a way where we highlight that they are not authoritative, they have no business, they are in glass houses and should not be casting stones. we're not going on them to get fired, they are just saying they are hypocrites so it's a tough callll and we take it case by ce and there are many cases we have
12:07 am
things that have come up that have come across myy desk and i haven't run with because i do think it's too much but sometimes it does say perfectly it seems like the right decision. >> who is marine power jobs, what is the emerson collective and white shirt consumers of media be aware of them? >> is an amazing story, thanks for asking about it. one of the most fascinating characters in breaking the news and it someone i knew almost nothing about which is relevant to this. she is aaou widow of steve jobs, the genius behind apple and pixar when he was on hiatus from apple. when he passed away in his 50s, she inherited tons of money, unspeakable amounts of money. her net worth now is perhaps 20 -- i'm sorry, $20 billion so she's one of the biggest women on the planet and if you are
12:08 am
limited with the things written about her and she doesn't make a ton of appearances publicly but what you learn about her is she's ado woman, a philanthropit but if you look into what she's got, she's not really a tech, she inherited a bunch of money. i started to look into it, she's in charge of the emerson collective which is her personal and be collective is a hybrid philosophic investing law and it sounds confusing, i still am getting. i think it's one 100% on purpose in it to hide exactly what she's up to. the collective is a lot of people, obama and alumni onoc te board and is almost exclusively democrat causes they own media and i notice a thing where they owned all different types of media outlets from the completely and arguably not credible so they are the owners
12:09 am
of the atlantic, over 100 years old, it's got a lot of polls, my not my favorite. axios is popular in washington they are the biggest shareholders but also the more activist, pro proved wicca, the mother jones. they are clearly trying toes get victories for the left. then now this millennial focus and something designed to weaponize on behalf of democrats against conservatives but then there's an acronym from internet terrorist group and even on the left are usually look into it because it something called the courier newsroom, what they do is launder fakeness. actual democrat propaganda into
12:10 am
local news outlets. she found top democrat candidates, hundreds of donations to democrats including kamala harris was a close personal friend and ally. the atlantic barely stopped short in the 2020 primary and i use some of the atlantic had when they were writing about harris and if you're on the right, you're going to uncomfortable, they are so over-the-top. she's got this whole web and she's the most important person, networkmp with the establishmen. she uses all of us where she has a probe rating malcolm x and it's an amazing character but unspeakably powerful and entirely american public.
12:11 am
i don't think anybody knew her name. >> the atlantic is not your cup of tea in the book, you actually write as a news outlet, atlantic is abominable, horrible tejournalist, often horrible people. my god, what do they do to your cheerios? >> i did use some color there, i was not happy when i was writing this. i went through a couple of stories where they were arguing against i think it was ultrasounds because they lead to fewer abortions. even if you are pro-choice, i don't know why heve would want more abortions which i find thad understand more abortions is repulsive to me and they argue for a chinese model and the government philosophy which is number think of the book over american media but they want from have an argument for a chinese model of censorship
12:12 am
which is a top libertarian, you have to see why i would be appalled from a major american publication, we should be more like china when it comes to a censorship. >> talk about that more, bloomberg as an example, how is corporate media in the united states bowing to the dictates of chinese sensors? >> i think this is something seen throughout the book and i paint a broad picture how certain outlets, virtually every major outlet does duke major business in china knowing how ruthless china is two people who do not, china's efforts keep this pristine image of itself in the party. you know there's going to be a certain level of compliance and i would say compromising of american values and principles to do business in china but take
12:13 am
nbc for example which is comcast universal, abc news is part of abc disney and we saw these major deals taking place that have linked the chinese market with the news industry. i'm not saying we would never ever report on china but needless to say if they start stepping out of line there's massive incentive from corporate headquarters to say if you keep doing this, you're going to hurt us in the biggest market in the world, china and we are selling movies there, theme parks and a lot of business there during and you are going to ruin that and that's a major disincentive to report accurately in china and bloomberg's case i think it's proven to be an incentive to engage and observe behavior and i played out in the book i documented bloomberg and
12:14 am
bloomberg lp which for people who are unfamiliar with bloomberg, they are the most powerful financial news outlet in the world, i believe they have more journalists in the ap new york times -- i'm sorry, new york times and "wall street journal" combined in their revenue year is at least double cnn combined so a massive outlet and they are one of the few american companies who gets to do a lot of business in china because of the party in china decides who gets to come and go though toears as maintain that level of access bloomberg and top executives flown to beijing and elsewhere in the region but beijing in particular on a regular basis the last few years. the only evidence of the meeting appears onf china's propaganda website which i have gone through meticulously for the book and we can only take their work because bloomberg didn't respond when i reached out.
12:15 am
the content of the meeting was introducing china to america, chinese stories in the west. cooperation between america and chinese media and then using bloomberg on the major democrat party goes on tv and starts talking about how xi jinping is not a dictator. he during a good job and he still making a power plant. all of thesel- excuses, all of this limburg climate activists putting two and two together, it's business bronchi who seems to have a napoleon complex and worth billions of dollars. >> who is sleeping giant or what is sleeping giants? most people are not aware of these things, talk about what they are and for significance and how they have intersected with your work. >> they are part of this generation of self-appointed sensors trying to police the
12:16 am
internet and sanitize it from content. they would argue is either fakeness or creating violence or spreading disinformation. the pattern is market they are doing it for people putting out content that does not fit the establishment narrative for the democrat narrative and their cases are by far. the sleeping giant was apparently care founder and woman intech who were these people didn't know to bright routinely until trump one but when trump onene and we were associated with trump supplies they started to check us out and they found ais few opinion piecs most ring as tongue-in-cheek and the voices of specific authors and they were used, they used that to paint the entire website as a radical extreme thing so
12:17 am
they went around with an astroturf group asking advertisers not to advertise on breitbart. what happened was some of them went with it because they probably disagree. some of them presumed were under pressure and other times we think it was people stuck with us so they did this for years and expanded to tucker carlson and others but what ended up happening is the sleeping giant reset the way, companies thought about online advertising and i don't want to get too granular because of their for anyone who reads up the right online advertising is done is generally echoes to third party broker, typically a huge outlet like that and they match the reader with the content. if you are reading, it's
12:18 am
mutually beneficial for breitbart because we didn't get product on a reader might buy it is beneficial for the company. the product is appearing in front of eyeballs likely to buy it. the system works fine and no one was unhappy about it for the most part until sleeping giant said wait a minute, what if you don't want your company to appear on the content regardless of who is the reader? when people started thinking about that is started because breitbart was so evil and horrible and visible but what ended up happening is the advertising business was extrapolated out and said maybe we don't want to be advertised about the crowbars. more about donald trump or were in all of these topics were seeming gratuitous people advertising on thesese stories d
12:19 am
it devastated and decimated the advertising industry. we don't have huge staff and we have a ton of profit so we did find. we survived the campaign but what interesting is the rest of the world and news media sometimes was worse than we did at the time. trafficked websites were up so high and get at revenue was down and you canca thank the sleeping giant so if you are a person who didn't get a raise or had your job cut, and the advertising downturn in recent years, i would ask if this is what they had in mind. it's an unbelievable consequence i know that's a huge answer, what they do is give a blanket score on website either you are
12:20 am
good guys or bad guys. a green check or by check. we set the standards and we don't really know who they are other than they are associated with media outlets and political parties and if you are not really forthcoming and do whatever they say and they brand you read and it's an absurd thing like if you like with breitbart, we used to indicate it. an ap story would get a red block because breitbart is not trustworthy but the new york timestb ap, if they put up the same story they get a green shield indicating that it's safe to read this. it totally bogus and funded by microsoft and designed to shut up people who want the status quo. >> stories in a lacrimal nature of onlineck activity, everyday u look on facebook one of the most popular pages, maybe this is an away you have insight on products usually dan bongino,
12:21 am
breitbart, ben shapiro. it's constantly back. you use a phrase especially in the latter half of the book, silicon valley masters of the universe. can they really be masters of the universe and it's so easy to wrap around what they are doing? >> i think there is a facebook is a noteworthy -- if not with you because they have allowed for some conservative content to do very well. the content boat that works on facebook is not all. it's most popular with our readersll yet fact checking even if it's true, the best example of recent as we are recording this, wee can air later. how many fact checks with her about wuhan bob theories that fact checked by t establishment sanctioned fact checkers and it turns out they are rethinking
12:22 am
back. the things breitbart puts out better true so often get fact checked as false or misleading because we supply context. cnn and the new york times and etc., we are not treated equally on those we notice the shift after the 2016 election when it comes to facebook. breitbart was the number one biggest outlet i believe, close to breitbart and the huffington post in 2016. right at the beginning i think it was 4018 facebook switched the algorithm turned the dial, plummeted on facebook from top five down to about 20 in terms of most popular publishers and then it went up during that time and clearly there is manipulation. we want band was diminished with hurt business. the product the storms because of our size but a lot of friends
12:23 am
and w colleagues just went kaput completely because they help their business model. while breitbart does very well on facebook iac do believe we be doing much better if there weren't a lotot of these governs put in place by people on electric, unaccountable silicon valley who never explained themselves or what they are doing, it is syria or thank you but twitter clearly centers conservative speech and falsehoods more. how much from overseas leaders are like to stay on the page whereas normative conservative thought can be thrown off of twitter google is the clearest example remain a foster breitbart traffic went literally 20 msu put the word breitbart in the search you are not ever going to get a joe biden story on ayo breitbart even an excluse story. i went to donaldd trump and got
12:24 am
an exclusive quote about joe biden, he was not going to show up in google searches msu put the word breitbart in there. nearly that is manipulation and masters of the universe type behavior because they are controlling so much of the information we consume each day whether or not appear blanket boycott or censorship, it varies outlet to outlet but clearly there doing massive amounts of manipulation. do you disagree with that? >> they are absolutely doing things right and mike on a daily basis and to hunter biden story particularly in october and november of last year and the new york postr off of twitter gratuitously or week and i don't really care overly much about the hunter biden story, we can disagree off-line about that but i don't want twitter to be kicking off politicians and saying to long-established paper
12:25 am
you can't write about this. it's inherently give us, the question becomes and this is where i will now ask you the question but what is the remedy? you mentioned that these are unelected people. we don't want to elect social media platforms. coming from a y conservative, is different than what we would hear from conservatives 30 years ago. when conservatives take power next, their top priority should be restraining big tech, holding them accountable for anti- conservative bias, favoritism for major corporations monopolistic tendencies, every available avenue to weaken these monopolies and oligopolies should be considered. do you think having the federal government weaponize check the power of people based on their abuse will end well for free speech? >> i don't know if that's how i would boil it down exactly what i would look at is the vast
12:26 am
majority of free speech which is i know the letter of the law with the first amendment is talking about the government but the reality is is that conservative speech is not as valuables as liberal speech at this time according to the people who controlled the most and that isac something we needo deal with. have to deal with it is more of a challenge and upwardly but clearly whatever we are doing now is not working, it's leading to clear manipulation on behalf of democrats which i go through the book a number of times. totally true hunter biden story which was branded russian disconfirm. so it's the conservatives where we are getting crushed not by the democrats, we are getting crushed by people in silicon valley controlling the first amendment at this time so either we are crossing with our first amendment or something must be
12:27 am
edone about it and this is one f the biggest challenges of our time because if we do nothing what's going to happen is you will see every year more conservatives getting removed and how from the internet so then what are our options? this i think is where we have to use test kitchens and have to see what to survive legal challenges because not everything well. it needs to be on the table and i don't put limit to the government to do something like breaking up the companies because i think they are picking up now where that could be a consideration. antitrust laws so that should be looked at again whether or not it needs level of reform in communications and decency act section 230 are big but i don't think people fully understand how to do that properly so these are tough calls but i don't think just leaving this up to where just going to build our own twitter. look at twitter and amazon
12:28 am
kicked them off, there's too much infrastructure that would need to be built from conservatives to compete that would just be totally destroyed. >> you write and masters of the universe here that it's apparent to me that the suppression of conservative friendly stories and the elevation of house narratives that benefit joe biden were enough to swing the election on its own. say i believe and masters of the universe for the singles is it deciding factor in the 2020 election, how is that any less conspiratorial than what msnbc talked about for three years after 2016 parts. >> i shown in the data with a survey the media research did where they laid out the top narrative against joe biden which is hunter c biden's scands
12:29 am
in his business dealings and kamala harris was the most radical leftist in the senate according to one major survey. joe biden was accused of sexual assault than he was in the senate by a staffer and this is something we're supposed to believe all women and also all the good news coming out of donald trump's america abdominal terms america resting terrific jobs numbers and returning to the middle east for the first time in my lifetime and the vaccine was shocking everyone, me included and all that and a few others and it was highlighted in a survey and they concluded that 17% of people who voted for joeur biden hadn't ben aware of all that was laid up which our culture in the book. they would not have voted for biden. it doesn't mean they went have voted for trump but it means they would not have voted for biden. the people who control our information other people who are the ones who can decide the most
12:30 am
votes. conspiratorial at all, how else are supposed to choose where they vote and messages based off what they are reading and talking about with friends and family? i don't know what else would swing the that much. is it tv ads? ... . but using that word is contentious as is the notion of $100,000 of facebook ads somehow will >> and the robot sheep you can
12:31 am
press the right button on the social media platform and it will change as many as 15 million votes. that is bananas 15 million votes were not changed by social media do youl d think that's aic possibility? >> i don't know if 15 million votes were changed. it's impossible to quantify that the numbers were so narrow and i go through in the book exactly oh narrow the margins were in the swing states it's tens of thousands of votes most of all couple hundred thousand swung the election and doesn't need to be 15 million or a fraction of that but it just needs to be enough people in those states just two or three of those and the election is a totally different outcome in do i believe had silicon valley be fair to trump and the
12:32 am
republicans like breitbart and treated us the same as cnn there would have been tens of thousands more votes at least against biden? yes. absolutely. so that 15 million number is an example of the cases being made of those who vote democrat epstein once biden to win that is a perspective i don't think it's fair to dismiss it as conspiratorial it's no more conspiratorial than what we were getting on a consistent basis. but it does make you consider the power ofe social media is just a given in our life and i do think we can understand and the book makes the case the power is so immense. >> you have a long section in the back talking about the election and how we should
12:33 am
think about the slogan as a concept and the main c case against the way the election was conducted was against mail-in voting we don't have time to go into all that that one i tiny point we have an unprecedented pandemic it is your contention that democrats and the media pushed for that mail in voting it is more manipulated creating holes in the chain and creates vulnerabilities for democrats to have more strength so just one narrow question is yet we expected there to be hijinks with that. would be not have seen or would we have seen donald trump gain in cities like he did everywhere he did in new york city, philadelphia, he did better in big cities you would i imagine that democratic
12:34 am
run big machines have the ability to put their thumb on the scale is where it what happened. >> i think he gained from mail-in voting but he lost more because biting gains more. coming into the border illegally some of them is given the vote but more will vote democrat mail-in voting is very similar making it easier to vote by mail that will benefit both sides by a greater margin is drastically favors democrats nobody thought biden would get 20 million more than barack
12:35 am
obama but this was making more of an institution because we could stay safe from a pandemic and there was no super spreader event from that and then designed to make it easier every community organizers to do their work at a minimum to get people who are otherwise not inclined to vote for democrats. >> you have a subheading calling the charlottesville hoax. that there are very fine people and with the presidency.
12:36 am
just a very bad people in the group but also people that were very fine people on both are the very fine people i have seen this a lot and i literally don't understand why that is a hoax. >> it's right there in the book it's the next page over less than one minute later after very fine people he said not that neo-nazis i can get them totally. it is right there in the book less than one minute later he says he condemns the neo-nazis but that was totally ignored because that was 61 seconds after he said there are fine people on both sides so the media conveniently cut it off. one minute later literally he says not the neo-nazis. and how much better he could do then to say not the
12:37 am
neo-nazis. >> it is a there's very fine people on both sides. maybe i am just a literalist maybe i saw condemnation of the neo-nazis himself. and then said very fine people on both sides i don't see how that is a hoax and then to chop off that context and pretend it didn't exist? big over timet it morphed into he called the nazis very fine people that heor did not. originally it was a big debate whether statues should come down because they represent something that they like and some people like the statues and they represent something and then they march and then people on both sides and then the radical people were not
12:38 am
defending anything at charlottesville at all but these people who are there that were just protesting i don't know if i would call them very fine people that they are not neo-nazis some more and they were condemned. into act like every single person there is a neo-nazis laughable. treating it like the greatest hate crime inld the world. we did so much worse and horrible hate crimes. one person died as a white woman and we obsessed over this as a nation. we didn't need to is not as bad as the media would seem. it's not true in this lineup. >> and then to cancel america in then traditional sense what do you mean cracks me with a
12:39 am
perfect example is 1619 in the book and how the origins were to reset collective memory. and founded in 1776 with e pluribus unum and the things that we love so much and for most of it is universal but it's one of the things as a founding doctor in or so we were told that their whole upbringing was a giant hoax and really founded 1619 with the first slave colony. it was specifically how it was written in the original essay to preserve the institution of slavery. we were founded specifically
12:40 am
because he wanted to have slavery and that's what's in our dna. that makes us a much more horrible place and a lot of professors including mainstream african-american studies professors were refuted but that's a perfect example it's not enough just to win a debate are get democrats or liberals elected those in the mainstream are making ale very concerted effort to reset america's founding principles away from the god-fearing liberty loving ideals and that is our core and essence. >> following up on that that we can no longer hide from the left time is of the essence. the left cannot be appease they do not want compromise they do not want to educate the reform and become one of them are they will come for
12:41 am
you it's f only a matter of time. it sounds pretty dire. >> and we have a couple of weapons i disavow political violenceit but this is one of the lessons that i learned from breitbart. he was a fearless warrior in someone very early on doing with the left want will not win them over the only way to win them over t is to be converted so they can use you as obliging against the rest of the right they would really like to see you crashed in breitbart is a perfect example we have constantly then called racist but my entertainment editor is a black man we have a black woman editor we have it or orthodoxy was the top
12:42 am
editor we have diversity is this applauded? of course not so the left is mad we put up more opinion pieces that are inflammatory. we don't do that is often so this is how breitbart has climbed down. of course not. we are not interested they want us to go away. because we still have the same core political principles we just articulate that many slightly different way. but it's never enough they will never give accolades for that that's a message i'm trying to send the healthy debate with the left i love talking to liberals but people on the hard left i believe are running most ofs the newsrooms are not interested in mind or your perspective but absorbing us. >> so there are some tension
12:43 am
on the basis with deep corporate media conservatives must interact with them only when it is w strategically advantageous to do so and then america has entered a dark moment with the dialogue with certain people is verboten it is a i dangerous trend and one that must be resisted intensely so which is it? >> both. you can engage in a dialogue with corporate media because i'm a reluctant user user of social media and n personally i don't like itnk but i do use it because i'm not naïve i don't think single-handedly to change the american people's perspective on one fell swoop i would love a day we are not as addicted to social media but the choices to opt out and
12:44 am
be irrelevant or certain degree that is strategically advantageous advantageous i want to send a signal those that they are not up for a robust debate it doesn't have to be bellicose but i do think those that have a wide totalitarian streak taking over more corporations. i find it more consistent and your point in general but it is a process is not a light switch i would try to flip it. host: your sense of where we are of the culture war will
12:45 am
that get more intense or blood he before it gets more peaceful? >> i don't think it will get bloodied. but for the most part and then to show up every so often. i wouldld love to see more civic engagement. even joey in j your homeowners association or your school board but unfortunately and then to swing back not just
12:46 am
calling it zeno fullbore whatever but to do this thing that is bifurcated moving to red states or blue states and then eventually companies will rise up. >> that would be horrible and i don't know what that looks like to be connected economically that it has to be one or the other either the pendulum swings back are it is a bifurcated nation give those who don't share your politics a reason to buy your book. >> the number one thing is i try to immerse myself in one of the big advantages me weed centrist news and establishment publications and we find a lot of common ground
12:47 am
we think of ourselves that yes we are right of center and allied of libertarian writers in a different one —- different perspectives if you pick up the book we get an entertaining version of what breitbart is thinking day today. even if you dismiss every idea in their to get that perspective the same way of these publications. host: breaking the news. thank you alex
12:48 am
>> in june robert gottlieb the final editor of all of robert caro's books wrote an editorial in the near times focusing on gunther in the 900 page book 90 years ago called inside usa probably the best reporter america ever had we wanted to find out more about this publishing success stories we called canadian freelance writer t14 about his 1992 book entitled inside. some
12:49 am
problematic things are the ways he feels about women, he also >> that we have a great event for h you talking about the book premonition. and we like to think our friends at books and books in miami and harvard bookstore in cambridge massachusetts partnering with us to make this event happened.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on