the american people almost never allowed to the same party three times in a row, and in the end of a financial meltdown was the final nail in that coffin. couldn't recover from that. so if the media in the end did not defeat john mccain, you could ask why should we care how they behaved? because the only reason, the only reason thomas jefferson and the boys gave the media constitutional protections with no checks and balances is because they were supposed to keep an eye on a very powerful government to protect all of us and that gets back to my early point, that is why liberals and democrats should care as much as anybody in this room tonight. but if nobody trusts the media and remember that you research statistics i gave you --

90 percent of republicans don't believe the media played here this time and 62 percent of democrats and independents don't think they played for either, so what happens when the media watchdog parks? nobody is going to pay attention and then we are all in trouble and when i say all i want you to understand what i mean -- i mean all, i mean democrats as well as republicans, liberals as well as conservatives. let me read if i might, the very end of my book about the in -- about this very point. the grim reaper is knocking on the mainstream media store and they remain gloriously oblivious. they have reached a tipping point but refuse to believe in it. in the crush and that is eating away at their credibility has been happening slowly, it is like acid rain. one day you look iran and all the trees are dead, nobody pays attention until it is too late

and when they become so irrelevant that no one listens to them anymore, they undoubtedly will lash out at their critics from poisoning the well. they will remain arrogant and clueless and blame the media bashers for damaging their standing with the public, but their demise won't come from the outside, it will be an inside job, the results of one to many self-inflicted wounds and one that day comes it will be very bad, indeed, for the mainstream media. pray that their demise doesn't also lead to ours. thank you very much. [applause] thank you. >> ladies and gentleman, mr. goldberg has agreed to take some questions so if you want to raise your hand i will, for with the microphone. i have a question, can you talk a little bit about the fairness garden and tell us? >> there is a chapter in the

book called the on fairness doctrine. let me give you a slightly longer means are here because this is interesting -- barack obama said during the campaign he has no interest -- does everybody know what it is? it would in an eye to that conservative talk radio by forcing station owners to put on a liberal shows that don't make any money in downgradings. now barack obama said he is against this. you watch, liberals in congress are going to -- they will not let this go away, they will, and from a different direction and color of local content which means after a conservative show a local group can come on income and their liberal opinions. can you say a corner by the way? [laughter] in this will be the exact same thing as the fairness doctrine will have a different name. now, here is why they don't really want fairness, they want to stifle conservative voices.

the only place in the media landscape and you get right down to a that is nominee by conservatives is talk radio. if they really wanted fairness and the fairness doctrine applies to the public airwaves, they would say, well in this book for instance there are lots of impartial studies that show that the media was far more favorable towards barack obama then john mccain. does the fairness -- and that they envision mean going to abc, nbc and cbs and saying if you have to battle -- balance or pro obama dealings with promise came feelings? no, that's not it, when barack obama went oversees all three anchors went along with him. that gave, that added stature to that trip, all three network anchors going along and when john mccain went over none of them went along. it does of the fairness doctrine

that the liberals in congress in addition, does that mean that they are going to go into force the three anchors out of fairness to go along with a republican when he goes overseas? of course, not, that's not what they mean by fairness and by the way it is not about fairness, it is about being unfair and it is about power. the half-hour now -- they have the power now and they want to stifle voices of dissent and it's not over. barack obama put a nail in something called the fairness doctrine, that doesn't mean it won't be coming it won't come around and some other form and i think it well. >> thanks, a great talk, thank you so much. and everybody here probably agrees you are right, they don't really care about being fair, the media and you say that of liberals should also care about the media not being fair, but

they don't. the response i get from every liberal i talked to is, great, we won. you are sore losers. >> you're right and that is why i came up with this really simple analogy with the referees. when they think it was okay if the referees had a really good reason to root for one team of the other, would that be ok? of course, not. in my liberal friends who i barack obama's about this who don't care either, they don't care, the need to care because if you have a mainstream media that people don't have a payback in even democrats and independents don't have faith in the idea, what happens of a bad guy comes along, a demagogue? i don't mean george wallace or even you a long. some really bad guy. what if he comes along and the first thing he does and i quote

-- abundant that used to work for jimmy carter and george mcgovern -- pat was quoted in the book as saying what happens when that demagogue comes along? and looks out at the crowd and says, his first campaign speech, using those people over there comes a those cameras, they are the media, they are out to stop me -- you know why? because they are out to stop du. everybody is going to believe him and then at the demagogue will get away with murder. that is why liberals should care, not just the opening of a movie. that could happen in this country and liberals need to care as much as anybody else cares. we're all in this together, we all need a strong where mainstream media but they are going down the train in their bringing it on themselves. >> thank you, mr. goldberg, why don't we have our own media?

we have our own universities, instructor, they seem to have the medial in the tank. >> the tilda right. >> but that is wavering at times. >> there are other countries that have systems when the media doesn't pretend to be down the middle. they represent different political points of view. it may come to that. i mean, some people think of is one of the three so-called mainstream that works was in the tank big time for barack obama and remains so, but cable certainly is that way. i would prefer it that of the media strain now itself come and get its act together, do what the founding fathers envisioned when they gave them constitutional protections with no checks and balances, and be

fair. it is not asking too much to be fair. but when you have it so many people in journalism who are left of center and that's not a shot, every poll ever taken where they sell identifying acknowledges that they are waiting way whale more liberals and conservatives, they don't see this as a problem. and even when they do see as the two people i quoted earlier, they say is what it is. no, that's not going to work because they continue to lose viewers, newspapers partly for technological reasons the internet but partly for ideological reasons continue to lose readers, circulation is down, ratings are down, there are going to become irrelevant before long and when they do as i said in the last page of the book, they will blame their critics. i have met people who work the

overnight and 7-eleven serving slurping is two insomniacs who have more introspection that a lot of journalists i know. [laughter] [applause] and you know what, let me say one other thing, this is current. there is an editorial in the new republic, very old, very prestigious in liberal circles magazine in washington, it in which they have the editorial called ms mrip -- mainstream media rest in peace and they talk about how media is going under, and they actually blame me by name. [laughter] if i had that kind of power they would have gone under a long time ago, but they blame cox, they blame me and they also blame liberal critics for poisoning the well. the see how smart i am? i wrote about this, i used the

exact words they did in the editorial which is out the week of march 4th, i said that that is what they would do. they blame their critics and it is not going to do them any good -- they need to look inward and have a little introspection or they will become so irrelevant that she would never want me here to speak about the media. a would be a waste of your time. that is where they are heading. >> this might be slowed -- slightly off the subject that really like her opinion. very recently i think it was on dennis kucinich been interviewed and if you recall during this whole time that we were throwing money at banks and brokerage houses and god knows to the democrats in congress, the party frank etc., stated that whenever the subject came up were not going to nationalize banks and it was not our purpose etc.

etc.. dennis kucinich about a week and half are so adel is being interviewed and was asked a question, barack obama and the democrats in congress have decided that a ceo or any other officer in a bank for any other company receiving government funds was going to have a salary cap a $500,000. kucinich was asked about this analyst this fair or corrupt and he sat there and pointed at bill clinton and said, the had a choice whether they took our money or not and to take it we all knew. what is your opinion? >> well, let's not pretend that a ceo who when he took over, whose stock was selling at $50 a share and today is selling at $2 a share, let's not pretend he

deserves $20 million a year because of anybody else ran the company into the ground --. [applause] they would be thrown out. so i think fact. but here is -- and i also think the following switches when i really glad you asked that because i want to get to this point. i think these ceo's who don't have a clue flying in on private jets and except $20 million for running their companies down, i don't have a lot of use for them to be honest with you. but the idea that they are being questioned and not just a question, what is the word i'm looking for, that they are being talked down to by people who have gone as $1 trillion in the whole is ridiculous.

[applause] i hope just on of them stands up and says, you know i have made a terrible mistake, i took your money coming here is your money back and don't you lecture me about screwing things up because you guys of the biggest drops in the united states of america. [applause] >> i don't know -- >> with me say one other thing -- i think republicans have to understand the reaction in this room. we don't like it any more than democrats like that kind of thing. we just don't think congress, we think congress is worse. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you, i don't know if this is to maintain our subject tonight but obviously you are

well read, well versed. how many magazines do you read the newspapers and if you take the time or is it all internet? >> i read a lot of stuff on-line in the morning just to see what is going on. i get several, i get "the new york times" and "the wall street journal" delivered to my house at great expense because "the wall street journal" i think is a great paper and my wife has to do the crossword puzzle. in the times. [laughter] but there are times when i read the new york times early in the morning and you're not going to believe this but i mean this -- my head explodes. [laughter] so i do go online every the number of columns. i am a big fan of charles crown hammer. [applause] and of several people at national review online and i read the liberal columns in "the wall street journal", there is a

liberal columnist, and i read that stuff too. and then i start the day, in other words i want to get a broad range of what people are thinking and talking about. >> bernie, are rick sent kelly and kraemer going to be able to keep their jobs? [laughter] >> i think they will. i am convinced they will because if anything happens to either of them, what is the logical conclusion francs? that we can't have any dissent in this country? i mean, i know they wouldn't be fired by government, it is not a censorship issue, but it would violate spirits of censorship. censorship only involves what government prohibits you from saying. ncmec decided to do something like that it would be a huge, huge mistake and i don't think they will, i think there save.

>> thanks for being here peridot yesterday morning and think it was rushed i was listening to and i know you said there is no conspiracy and i believe you, of course,, rush limbaugh was saying that there is a conference call in the morning from -- in in all that goes out to george stephanopoulos and james carville camisole is there any --? >> i heard about this several weeks ago. for those of you who don't know there is a story on politico which is a very good on-line newspaper and it was paid to buy other side that says every morning rahm emanuel and stephanopoulos and cargill -- and james carville talk on the phone and have a chat. i have to be honest, i don't know they're talking about. if they aren't talking about guys off, the football game last night with, you don't believe they're talking that, do you?

[laughter] in the comey cynical, right? [laughter] if they are talking just guy stuff i don't have a problem with it. if they're talking political stuff and the political stuff entails i don't thank you should handle it this way or that way, that is so off the charts. it the one reason i am willing to believe it doesn't happen that way, that is outrageous if that were happening in the good turns out something like that, in fact, happening in abc news took no action against their anger then every executive at abc news would have to go and that is what i don't think is happening. well, i shouldn't say that, the minister answer is i don't know what they're talking about. this may surprise you but i am not involved in that conference call para [laughter] but if that is happening, off the charts unacceptable. >> i have heard several economists who have the opinion that because of the death of the problem of the real-estate

market in the size of the loss of value of the average person has that the only real way out of that mess is by wild inflation and their prediction is that the government not only was support that but we do anything in their power to make that happen because it's the easiest way out -- what is your opinion on that? >> i'm not an economist but i did speak to dick morris about that very point and i'll tell you what he thinks it -- he thinks two years from now we've got hyperinflation. and housing prices are going to go through the rough and other commodities will go through the roof or commodities will. i don't know. again, i'm not an economist or expert by enemies but it seems to me that if you are printing money anbar wayne money at some point you're going to have to pay the price for this and and in that price is, in fact, going

to be hyperinflation so i think that is probably a logical conclusion to all of this. of course, there is a will to deal with it and you can raise interest rates way up and bring it down, but that will touch off the next recession which would come right after the next election by the way, presidential action. >> hello, is don? i write a column in the los angeles county republican women newsletter, it is called a my bookshelf and i wrote about "bias" and i would like to write about this one next. i do have a question, all those years ago when you wear with cbs, were you a liberal or a conservative then? and if you weren't a conservative then, when did you see the light? [laughter] [applause] >> good question.

nice outfit and good question. [laughter] if you did not see she is wearing the red, white and blue and all that. i grew up in a lower middle-class blue-collar family. my parents thought that franklin roosevelt could walk on water even though he literally had trouble walking on land. i mean, it was a solid blue-collar democratic family and that is how i grew up. in college i was one of those people who said of barry goldwater gets elected and i am moving to australia, but all people in college are stupid by and large. [applause] and even in "bias" which came out in 2001, the book to which you referred, i describe myself as an old-fashioned liberal

along the lines of john kennedy and then i specifically said, not along the lines of michael moore or al franken. i don't know over time if i moved to the right or if liberals moved further and further to the left and then abandon me. [laughter] and i tend to think that is set. i consider myself a conservative now on two of the three basic issues that define conservatism. i am as conservative as rush limbaugh is on smaller government and lower taxes, ims conservative as any conservative on anti-terrorism and national defence, on social issues i am libertarian. i don't care. i just don't care what people do. [applause] i understand that everybody

agrees with that, but what distinguishes me for my old liberal friends is i don't think people are big debts if they believe certain things like they are against a marriage instance. liberals thank you are a heater and a bigot, i say what about thousands of years of history of religious history? so i am not like them, but i am libertarian on the matter of social issues and i think liberals just went further and further and further to the laughed and even if i didn't move at all i would be playing right field at this point. [laughter] [applause] >> mr. goldberg, we have time for one more question. >> by the way can i add one little thing to this? do you know, on the question of torture, i find the debate incredibly superficial period

did somebody say men? in good. and you know where i find, see if you get this right -- t know were i find the most intelligent discussion in the media? on the issue of torture? exactly -- who said that? [applause] twenty-four. did you say that? this is an issue that delves into the nuances of it. i mean, when i hear liberal democrats including people who just became attorney general and president and people like this say, i am against waterboarding. well, i am against a 99% of the time and they are against a 100 percent, i am against it for litterbugs. [laughter] i am against it for j walkers. i am even against it for punishing somebody for something they already did.

but, please, i wish one of these liberals, my old liberal friends would tell me, they talk about american values and that's why there are against all torture -- please tell me what american value is being withheld that if we thought by torturing and i'm putting the word in quotation marks somebody we could prevent a city from being exposed to a dirty nuclear bomb -- what american value it is being upheld by saying i am against torture all the time? and what it is an american city were 100,000 people may die, but one is yellow school bus with 34th graders on their way to the museum, you tell me what american values is upheld by letting the school bus get blown up? i'm sorry, i don't get it. [applause]

and when the most intelligent discussion about this issue giving both sides is on a drama show like 24 and it is absent by large from the mainstream media, there is something really wrong about that. [applause] >> thank you very much. a small percentage of conservatives who are in the media, how are they treated in those circles? are they able to speak out and say what they stand for or are they just silent? second part of the question, do you here with any degree of regularity in the liberal person in the media do it gets wish you are saying in his stands up against the bias that is there? >> okay, because i have alzheimer's i will ask your part of the question. [laughter] basically the first part is what is the reaction to

conservatives. okay, i worked at cbs news ultimately for 20 years before i put to write "bias", and at the 25 year mark, not a lot of people were for one company for 25 years, i wrote an op-ed in "the wall street journal" about liberal bias. i don't think any other mainstream journalists had ever written about liberal bias early while he was still working for a big mainstream music. it touched off the media equivalent of world war iii. they don't take it well. i told dan rather the day before the article came out, he was and i was covering the caucuses in february 1996, and i said, i wrote something that is going to be in "the wall street journal" tomorrow and any to give you a heads up and i don't thank you are going to like it. he said to me, this was 1996, how many years ago, 15 years ago

-- 13 years ago. he said, bernie, he did not know what it was about, he said we were friends yesterday, we will then stay -- what did you right? i told him what i wrote and from that day when. [laughter] this is to help a crowd i don't even have to finish. from that day in february 1996 until today i have -- not a syllable from dan rather. so the point is that they don't take criticism well. they need to be able to take criticism better than they do because their survival depends on it. mine does not, i am doing quite well, they are not doing well at all. [applause] and the second part, are there any liberals to speak up? peter jennings may he rest in peace did if knowledge and i

believe it was a boston globe interview some time ago that we tend to give surly more time to liberal voices than conservative voices, but he went further and acknowledged that. we sometimes shortchange year ago but then he would say the next day something that indicates he didn't think there was a liberal bias so i did not know how he felt but i will tell you the best one by far. you said liberal journalists -- i don't know if he was a liberal journalist, that is how good he was in may he rest in peace two -- tim russert. [applause] because tim russert when i wrote "bias" and, you see i have no constitutional right to be on anybody's tv show or radio show, so the fact that nbc, abc, cbs, npr was really