tv After Words Alex Marlow Breaking the News CSPAN August 7, 2021 5:48am-6:48am EDT
>> what is the instrumental purpose of this book? what do you hope to accomplish and who do you hope to reach? >> i hope it 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 hope they get two things out of it. first of all arguments they can use in debates they may or may not be having around the country. i'm optimistic in the future we will return to an error to have a more robust public discourse and dialogue. and second hope it's entertaining and enjoy a
learning the things we have been researching the last couple your. >> you are positive the news is broken and in the three main ways that within the newsroom by agenda driven journalist who do not admit they are agenda driven and once through the board room through corporate corruptions and deals and also from people like you in breitbart that throw rocks at the structures. talk about that for those who might not be fully aware what breitbart does and the role of the independent right of center media ecosystem. >> on balance there is the
former more than the latter but it is fun to go to the history of breitbart because we have been largely misconstrued i don't think we've been given a fair shake in the public. i do they that out throughout the book. it is mostly mmr but only because i was the first employee of breitbart but a lot of the knox has been dishonest and one of the things where people have heard some of them for so often like we are all to write that is associated with anti-semitism we have orthodox jews on staff were owned by jews the former - - the senior editor is orthodox do it was founded in israel and 100 percent pro idea so it is repeated over and over but pointing that out i think is worthwhile. but to the essence of your question, i do think as long as there is free speech in
america and it's not entirely controlled by silicon valley, then there will be dissident voices that are able to penetrate into the national dialogue without having the institutional backing of a corporation at that level of corporate media is too much. i would be shocked if anybody disagreed with that thesis. but i do think with the rise of podcasting and alternative media sources, it has left the indelible mark to establish the credibility. >> is there a way the news is broken in a good way? but in the way it is also bad because it is a critique so is there a natural tension
between the brokenness of the news? >> it is a tragic story because we would love for our media to be heroes locale they are portrayed in popular culture. largely controlled of those of the same worldview as those of the news media. we want to portray people as heroes and to stop the machinations of ill will within society. but really that's not what it is right now the establishment media is about twitter likes and conformity in appear group and serving gigantic corporations which are multinational they are not that focused on what it means to be american at all. i do find this somewhat heartbreaking. the fact the news has been broken by these upstarts that a champion, it is a good thing
in a way that it is possible in america but by and large it would be great if we can look at corporate media and trust them to a certain degree. that corporate outlet is so much in recent years and it's not a great thing. >> you write in your first chapter to do a victory lap over the way you first co-opted and turned around the hillary clinton phrase that we heard a lot of in november 2016 which was fake news and then later the president started to use it. talk about that timeline. >> straight out of the breitbart playbook and it's my baby and glad you asked i never thought i would any on - - get any type of credit so i will now.
but when hillary started to use the term fake news we had seen floating around in left-wing obama circles. we were starting to see a concept. late. is that i know what they are going to do exactly this will be something that is used to brand people like the altar writer things that are used like white nationalist that people don't even necessarily know the leaders of the movements or what the words mean, but if you brand on - - brand someone, then it's very hard to wash that off. i knew hillary clinton would do that specifically with breitbart not that we put out fake news that because we were effective so we are always the tip of the spirit over the last decade with those attacks on conservative media outlets
because we are the biggest of the upstarts maybe only fox is bigger but still a corporate outlet. when i saw hillary doing this she had a speech it was supposed to be a celebration for harry reid may be a retirement she use the term over and over again and i said this will break through. i see what she's doing. i didn't know for sure but i thought maybe she was thinking about breitbart so i did what we've done in the past and said we will repurpose this we'll take a branding fake news and put it on every false story that comes out of the establishment whether cnn or "the new york times" and start doing fake news. and co-op the expression then donald trump got into it a month or two later in a press conference and write off the cuff he said you are fake news
and then the pro trump world that that was hilarious and then he became his phrase and he ran with it. but i do believe it began with breitbart co-opting that term as opposed to something that would be used to attack us. >> you did just complained they were using it to tarnish groups of people isn't that what you are doing with the media? calling them the fake news media are you not tarnishing them in a collective way? >> sure. there are two components. the first part is they started it they started to brand us as fake news and they go out of their way to diminish breitbart's influence and the conservative media's influence in general if we get attention it's always negative never positive. they are in a battle against
us. 's what we do is we use the term. but they have to earn it we don't just call a liberal opinion fake news just because we don't agree but we wait until there is the actual falsehood so using the's broad strokes and would actually cite the falsehood. so that's not an equivalent thing so the retaliatory nature of it is important we are not looking to pick fights with people but to react to people we think are coming after us or our readers. the term fake news if you got the breitbart story that was fake news i would say sure. we would try our best but it is true. >> you focus on three media companies new york times bloomberg so talk about "the
new york times" and your decoder ring. >> they have the list of priorities that they use of that cure ration is the obvious of the front page story and who are the heroes and who are the villains. but i notice that they would get the glamorous photos on the front page and others would get no photo if you're writing on a story that fits the narrative like trump did something bad or coronavirus would ravage all society and feel they could back it up and they put that on the front page input the argument or the piece of information at the
top of the article so one example so many outlets word reopen and disney world last summer and then that would create super spreader events so that this is reckless it is horrible everyone will die from this and then it turns out weeks later there was no evidence of any super spreader event than they did not make the front page. eventually they start to trickle out months later and those that are buried within the paper and you start to see these patterns and it's fun to point out i see what they are doing there is information that contradicts the point. so they might included that they just don't put it at the top. so i try to make it more clear
but you can take a picture of it with your phone is like a game to see what you are doing. >> you write in the book and breitbart published between the tweets staffers made before they joined the times a controversial case list. what is that newsworthiness significance? why are we talking about the collegiate tweets of new york times staffers quick. >> what are the examples? >> one is from gina have it up in front of me but they were not good so why is this were the talking in the context of the modern-day new york times quick. >> it's not about the individuals in most cases.
and those sarah john tweets are so over-the-top. >> and she did some of those while as a staffer. >> that yes it is purely a hypocrisy angle and breitbart has been fending off claims that were anti- somatic despite jews that own the company in orthodox jews that edit the site and the admitted bias towards israel 100 percent of the time it has been enabled by the establishment press who does employee people who have thoughts in the past so he was not fired. i don't think he should have been fired i did not call for his firing nor did anyone at breitbart i don't think.
but have the authority on anti-semitism employing people like that. they call the balls and strikes. and the case it makes add a broader level they portray themselves as the neutral umpire in the international light but that is not true they are not neutral at all. >> in those circumstances are you contributing to the outrage archaeology where people dig through the social media dumpster of people in the past? should i look to see what terrible things you wrote in high school to bring down breitbart once and for all? >> it's a tough decision because i'm stuck between a rock and a hard place if we extend the courtesy to them that when the lady from axial's was fired for tweets
that she did at 17 was outrageous and i said so publicly she should not have left that job and should not put out a week need statement as well and set i was 17 years old. take a hike. but i do think there are only two choices. let the left user tactic to destroy people on my staff with no pushback at all or do it in a way where we highlight they are not authoritative, they are in glass houses and should not cast stones. we do not : them to be fired but that they are massive hypocrites. it's a tough call and we go case by case. we do have things that have come up that i have not run with because it's you much of a cheap shot but it does make
a point if you make the right decision. >> what is the emerson collective and why should consumers of media be aware quick. >> it's an amazing story. one of the most fascinating characters in breaking the news. someone i knew almost nothing about that is relevant. the widow of steve jobs the genius behind apple and pixar. when he passed away at 50 she inherited and speakable amounts of money. her net worth i'm sorry $20,000,000,000.1 of the wealthiest women on the planet. very limited things have been written about her and does not
do a lot of public appearances. but what you learn she is a woman in tact and a philanthropist. but look at what she does really she is an heiress. she is in charge of the emerson collective which is really her personal trust it is a hybrid philanthropic investing arm. i don't get it either but that's 100 percent on purpose if she can hide which is up to and then the emerson collective find exclusively almost democratic causes and they own media outlets all different types from the culture credible to the not credible so they are the owners of the atlantic.
it has a lot of pull in certain circles. not my favorite. axioms very popular in washington. the biggest shareholders of that. pro public. mother jones. but they tried to get victories for the left. but with these viral videos and something designed to weaponize content against conservatives but then there is acronym that is a nefarious group you should look into this because what they do is they launder fake news democratic talking points and propaganda and they put this together she also funds top
democratic candidate she's made hundreds of donations to democrats including kamala harris who is a close personal friend and ally the atlantic barely stop short of endorsing harrison the 2020 primary in a new some of the quotations had. if you are on the right physically will be uncomfortable they are so over-the-top with the praise she is the most important person with the media establishment and she uses all of this industry on - - imagery in her office it is an amazing character that is unspeakably powerful and entirely anonymous before this book i did not even know her
name. >> you said is not your cup of tea but you write as a news outlet it is abominable horrible journalist and horrible people. what did they do to your cheerios? >> i did you some colors. [laughter] i was not happy will i wrote this. i went through a couple of stories where they were arguing against ultrasounds because even if you are pro-choice i don't know why you want more abortions i just find that position. pro-choice i understand more abortions but they argue for the chinese model in the government the chinese influence over american media but they want a model arguing for a chinese model of censorship which is a top libertarian you can see why i would be appalled coming from
the american major publication we should be not like china. >> follow-up but that. how is corporate media bowing to the dictates of the chinese sensors? >> this is seen throughout a lot of elements of the book. i paint a broad picture how they do major business in chiat this point knowing how ruthless it is to people who stand to thwart china's efforts to keep that image of itself. you know there will be as certain level of compliance compromising of american values and principles that take nbc for example which is
part of nbc comcast universal abc news is part of disney and abc. we saw major deals taking place that link the chinese market with the american news industry will never report on china but if the newsroom steps out of line there is massive incentive from corporate headquarters to say if you keep doing this you will hurt us with the biggest market in the world. you will ruin that for us. it has been proven to be and incentive of certain behavior i lay that out pretty comprehensively in the book because not everybody gets their news from bloomberg but
they are the most powerful financial outlet in the world more journalist from "the new york times" cnn and wall street journal combined in revenue per year is at least double fox and cnn combined. they are massive outlet one of the few american companies that gets to do a lot of business in china because the state central party decides who can come and go. it appears to maintain that level of access bloomberg has flown to beijing on a regular basis the last few years. the only evidence of the meetings appears on the china propaganda website which i have gone through we can only take their word for it because bloomberg did not respond but to introduce chinese stories to the west.
cooperation between american and chinese media. then you see the major funders go on tv to start talking how president xi is not a dictator, he is. doing a good job on the environment. the biggest polluters to making coal-fired power plants and bloomberg is supposed to be a climate activist it's a business move for a guy who seems to have a napoleon complex worth $50 billion. >> what is sleeping giants? most are not aware of these things with the significance and how they are being receptive to your work. >> it's part of a generation of self-appointed sensors to try to sanitize it from content they would argue is fake news or creating violence or spreading misinformation
but they do it for those that put out content that does not fit that establishment narrative and as so often is the case the test cases of breitbart the sleeping giant was not related to the ad executive and a woman in tech. these people did not go to breitbart routinely intel trump juan and we were associated with his rise so they found if you opinion pieces written time in she and the voices specific authors and they use that to paint the entire website and that must not have advertising so they
went around asking advertisers not to advertise on breitbart so some of him went with it and then we presume because they were under pressure. and other times that people stuck with us. so we did this for years and then expanded to tucker carlson but what ended up happening during the process is the sleeping giant reset the way companies thought of their online advertising. the way it is done generally goes through a third-party broker like google or another outlet and they match the reader with the content if you read this and you would like
this which is mutually beneficial for breitbart because then we get product placed it is beneficial for the company selling the product because they are product is appearing in front of eyeballs. the system works fine but then the sleeping giant said weight. what if you don't want your company to appear? when people started to think about that because breitbart was supposed to be horrible and evil for the advertising business started to extrapolate maybe we don't want to advertise our content on trump or the coronavirus. all of this topic was gratuitous to put advertising this totally devastated the advertising industry. we don't have a huge staff so
we did find. we survived the campaign. but the rest of the news media they did markedly worse than we did even though traffic websites it was up so high that ad revenue was down you can think sleeping giants so if you are a person that had your job cut during that advertising downturn i would ask those two at this is what they had in mind. i'm sure it is in. to give a blanket score on a website good guys or bad guys. green check or read check.
and if you are not forthcoming with them then it is absurd but we syndicate the a piece of the breitbart ap story will get a red block because breitbart is not trustworthy but new york times puts up the exact same story they get a green shield indicating it is safe to read. it's totally bogus funded by microsoft to shut out people who just wrapped the status quo. >> this calls the whack a mole nature of that online activity every day you look on facebook the most popular page
something like dan, then schapiro or breitbart it is constantly that. you use a phrase of the silicon valley masters of the universe. can they really when it is so easy to go around what they are doing? >> facebook is noteworthy because they have allowed for some conservative content to do very well the content that works on facebook is not all hours but what is fact checked even if it is true. the best example as we are recording this i don't recall exactly we reported but how many fact checks on the wuhan lab series adjust by the establishment sanctioned fact checkers and now they are rethinking that. what breitbart puts out that her true, so often are of fact
check as false or misleading verbally in falsehoods from cnn thrive. we are not treated equally on the platforms. we notice as shift after the 2016 election with facebook breitbart was the biggest outlet in "the new york times" and huffington post in terms of influence at the beginning of 2018 facebook switched the algorithm our traffic plummeted we were in the top five at about 20 of most popular publishers. cnn went up. clearly there is a manipulation. we were not band but the reach was diminish which hurt our business we can weather some of the storms because of our size but a lot of friends and colleagues went out completely
because so much of their model was facebook shares so although we do well i do believe we would be doing much better by put in place by those that are unelected and unaccountable for those that never explain themselves it is mysterious. but twitter clearly sensors conservative speech in falsehoods. how many calls to violence from overseas leaders could stay on the page where conservative thought? google is the clearest example may have last year it literally went to zero unless you put breitbart in the search you will never get a joe biden story. if i went to donald trump during the campaign got an exclusive quotation about joe biden it would not show up in the google search and that she
put in the word breitbart that is manipulation and masters of the universe type of behavior because they control the information that you consume each day whether it's appear blanket boycott that varies from outlet to outlet do you disagree with that that they are doing something? >> they are absolutely doing that right and left on a daily basis and that suppression of the hunter biden story kicking the new york post off of twitter gratuitously for a week. i don't care much about the hunter biden story we could disagree off-line about that that i don't want twitter to be kicking off politicians to say you cannot write about this. it is inherently ridiculous and then the question becomes
what is the remedy? you mentioned these are unelected people we don't want to elect the social media platforms. the phrase that you use at the end it is strong coming from a conservative which is different from 30 years ago. >> when conservatives take our next, their top priority should be restraining big tech, holding them accountable for the anti- conservative bias favoritism and the monopolistic tendencies every available avenue and oligopolies should be considered. do you think having the federal government weaponize to check the power people will end well for people with free speech? >> i don't know if that's how i waited boiler down exactly but the vast majority of free speech i know the letter of
the law but conservative speech is not in valuable and according to people that control at the most but that is more of a challenge and up for debate that clearly whatever we're doing now is leading to clear manipulation you cite a perfect example the hunter biden story which was branded russian. so the conservatives where we are getting crushed not by the democrats but people in silicon valley controlling the first amendment at this time. so we are trusting them with the first amendment or something must be done about it. this is one of the biggest challenges of our time.
because if we do nothing every year you will see more conservatives getting removed from the internet than what are our options? and we have to use the state test kitchen to see what can survive legal challenges. but there needs to be a lot on the table but i think the companies are big enough now. antitrust laws that should be looked at again with the level of reform to the decency act section 230. i don't think people fully understand how to do that properly. but i don't think leaving that up to me will build our own twitter. there is just too much infrastructure for
conservatives to compete that will be totally destroyed by the time that happens. >> you write in masters of the universe at it is apparent to me that suppression of conservative friendly stories in the elevation of the narrative that benefit joe biden was enough to swing the election on its own. you say i believe the masters of the universe was the single biggest deciding factor in the 2020 election. how is that any less conspiratorial than what msnbc talked about for three years after 2016? >> i show in the data where the media research center laid out the top narrative against her biden which is the hunter biden scandals, kamala harris was the most radical leftist
and the senate according to one major survey and joe biden was accused of sexual assault when he was in the senate by a staffer. and remember we are supposed to believe all women and in donald trump american use jobs numbers returning to the middle east for the first time and the vaccine was on track. and all of that highlighted that any survey and concluded that 17 percent of people that voted for joe biden had they been aware of all eight of the things that they laid out would not have voted for biden. that doesn't mean they would have voted for trump that not biden in the logic of the people who control our information other people who can decide the most votes i
don't think that is conspiratorial at all how else are the people supposed to choose a they felt unless they know they are reading about and talking about? what else would swing the vote? i don't know the alternative. >> somebody went on msnbc a lot if they said the election was arraigned or in some way manipulated or hacked, i would always point out no. nobody got between the voter and voting machine. but using that word is contentious as is the notion of $100,000 of facebook ads somehow will swing things paints individual consumers to be robot sheep to press the right button and it will
change that as many as 15 million votes. that is bananas that was not changed by social media do you really think that's a possibility quick. >> i don't know if 15 million votes were changed. it's impossible to quantify. but the numbers were so narrow they go through exactly how narrow those margins were and overall a couple hundred thousand. it doesn't need to be 15 million or fraction of that. it needs to be enough people, just two or three of those states with a totally different outcome and do i believe had silicon valley then fair and treated us the same as cnn was treated there would have been tens of thousands more votes that went against biden?
absolutely. so eyesight that number as an example of cases made by scholarly's votes democrat. he wants biden to win. it is a perspective not aired at all i don't think it's fair to dismiss that as conspiratorial. it is in impossible to back up. but it does make you consider the power of social media and that is a given in our life. i think people would understand that taking seriously the power they have over politics is so immense it is incalculable. >> you have a long section the back how we should think about the slogan as a concept and the main case the way the
election was conducted was against mail and voting. it is a distraction but i do want to talk about one.. the unprecedented pandemic it is your contention the democrats pushed for mail-in voting it creates more holes in the chain and more manipulative. the democrats have more strength. just one narrow question. and yet we expected there to be hijinks with that. would we have seen donald trump gain in cities? he gained in new york city. i think in philadelphia. he did bigger in big cities than 2016 you would imagine the big machines if they had the ability to put their thumb
on the scale that's where it what happened. >> trump gained certainly from mail-in voting but he lost more than he gained because biden was gaining more. for example people coming to the border illegally. some if given the vote, some will never vote trump that more will vote democrat i think mail-in voting is similar. if you make it easier to vote by mail then more people will vote by mail and that will benefit both sides but it benefits biden by a greater margin but on net drastically favors democrats. the stats bear that out. i don't think anyone thought it would be conceivable biden we get 20 million more than barack obama of course that is mail-in voting that was made more of an institution because
we need to stay safe from a pandemic. most people went to that and there was no super spreader event in. >> and for community organizers at a minimum to get people who are not inclined to vote pick democrat. >> a subheading called the charlottesville hoax for conservative media in critiques of mainstream media. and the fake news narrative that trump said they are very fine people on both sides and charlottesville. that came around by the end of the presidency. the broader trump quote he says you have some very bad people we also have people were fine people on both
sides. and i don't understand why that is a hoax. >> it's the next page over. it's right after he said very fine people not the neo-nazi i condemned them totally that's the exact quote. not the neo-nazi i condemned them in less than a minute later and that was totally ignored because it was 61 seconds after he said there's fine people on both sides. but literally one minute later he said but not the neo-nazi. i don't how much better he can do then to say not the neo-nazi. >> but it is a there's very fine people on both sides. maybe i am a literalist.
and i saw the condemnation of the neo-nazi myself and you see condemned those people and said very fine people on both sides. i don't see how that is a hoax so is it your contention that people deliberately chopped off that other context and pretended it didn't exist quick. >> over time it morphed into he called neo-nazis very fine people which he did not. originally it was a big debate if the statues should come down the people wanted them to come down because they represent something they don't like our then they think it is defensible and then they would march but then obviously the radical people with the tiki torches were not defending anything in charlottesville
that these people were probably protesting because they didn't want the statues taken down it wouldn't call them very fine people i would not comment neo-nazis but they were condemned somewhere not an they do not have to be condemned to act like every single person was a neo-nazi is laughable it was treated like the greatest hate crime in the history of the world and we did so much worse one person died it was a white woman in be obsessed over this we did not need to we try to make it like trump was out this on - - was at the center. >> you say about journalist the ultimate goal is to cancel america in the traditional sense. what do you mean? >> 1619 that i get out into a lot of detail in the book and the origins were to reset the
collective memory and founded 1776 which is liberty and all of these things first and second amendment and most of that is universal but one of the things that was the founding doctrine are so we were told but really we were founded in 1619 with the first sleeve colony and it was specifically, specifically to preserve the institution of slavery we were founded specifically because we wanted to end slavery and that's what's in our dna. that makes america much more
horrible place to its core if that is true but professors including mainstream professors but it's not enough just to win a debate to get democrats or liberals elected. of american media at this aku bakr al-baghdadi to make a considerable effort to reese one - - with those god-fearing liberty loving ideals that i grew up on but that is eric or and essence. >> following up on that one of the things that you say is we can no longer hide from the left. time is of the essence the left cannot be appeased they do not want compromise and then become one of them are they will come for you it's only a matter of time. that seems pretty dire. >> i think it is.
we have sound weapons i disavow political violence but this is lesson i learned from andy breitbart and i was the first employee he was a fearless warrior and told me very early on that doing with the left once will not win them over the only way is to be converted to use you as a bludgeon and they want to see you crashed and breitbart is a perfect example. we possibly have become one - - have been called racist again my top senior editor is a orthodox jew diversity within the company of course this isn't applauded so the
left is mad we put up more opinion pieces that were more inflammatory we don't do that is often now so now we have pieces how breitbart has calm down because they are not really interested in is calming down they want us to go away because we still have the same core principles we just articulate them in a slightly different way that is similar but it's never enough we'll never get the accolades that's a message am trying to send to people liberals are wonderful i love talking to liberals but those on the hard left that run most of the newsrooms are not interested in our perspective. >> i invite you to see if there is any attention.
but in order to defeat the corporate media conservatives must interact only when strategically advantageous to do so and then america has entered a dark moment with dialogue for those that is for about and it is a dangerous trend that must be resisted intensely so which is it? >> you can engage in the dialogue and corporate media. that's why i am a reluctant user social media and personally i don't like it but i use it because i am not naïve. i don't think single-handedly i can change the american people's perspective i in one fell swoop so social media isn't just about angry leftism. but until that day is here my choices to opt out or opt in
to where strategically it is advantageous. i want to send a signal to people who were in the middle liberals who were genuinely curious about what we're thinking that are not up for a robust debate or even a cordial debate. doesn't have to be bellicose but the element of the left clearly distinguished from liberals a while totalitarian streak is taking over more co-op on - - corporations i find that more consistent than you but it is a process if it was a light switch i would try to fit that but it cannot be done. >> where do we go with this conversation but your sense of where we are with culture war?
will i get more intense and bloodied be for more peaceful and different? >> i don't think it will get plenty i don't think americans in general are that committed. i don't want to see it get plenty i disavow violence. i will say that over and over but there is an element that is fired up that people are fat and happy enjoying their streaming and services and are more content to show up and vote every so often i would love to see more civic engagement even at a lower level joining your homeowners association or school board but unfortunately we have two choices the pendulum needs to swing back to letting the best ideas when having a bigger form of debate not just calling it racist or sexist
when you disagree but to be bifurcated people moved to red states or blue states eventually companies will rise that. that would be horrible and i don't know what that looks like because we are so interconnected economically that it has to be one of the other if the pendulum swings back. >> in the last minute that we have given viewers who don't share your politics the reason to buy your book. >> the number one thing i try to immerse myself in one of the big advantages that we read left-wing news and establishment publications and may find a lot of common ground we think of ourselves we are right of center but
allied of libertarian writers and if you pick up the book you will get an entertaining version when they edit the page of breitbart day today even if you dismiss every idea in there is enriching to get that perspective the same way i word read countless publications this year. >> breaking the news exposing the deals and some
problematic things are the ways he feels about women, he also credits his mom was saying she was the first to teach him this kind of discipline that he found in the nation of islam. in many ways returning to her teachings before he even met. why is it that we have this evidence included in the book that we just erased it over time. some part of it is this understanding of sexism and our society,is