>> coming up next on booktv, william mcgowan says that the "new york times" "new york times" has adopted a liberal ideological agenda under the tenure of current publisher arthur sulzberger junior. he says the newspaper has tarnished his reputation of a trusted news source. william mcgowan presents his arguments in the debate with the american editor at large for "the guardian." u..

>> a few months ago, the daily beast absorbed "newsweek" or the other way around. and we have seen situations in which there's now some original content that occurs only online. i mentioned two sources. the fiscal times, and those who want to follow new york issues, web site called "the city pragmatist." something exciting is happening, and one good thing is this web page of "the new york times." a rocky start. a lot of good content. the title of tonight's discussion, "the new york times" good for democracy? a better question would have been, wouldn't have been as provocative, on balance, is "the new york times" good for democracy? and to that question we can give, yes, but, and no, but,

answers, with a lot of variationness between. for that, let me introduce our two speakers. mike tomasky. editor of "democracy." a quarterly general based in washington. deserves an applause. [applause] >> he is also the american editor at large for the british guardian, where he writes a blog, and he will give you the address of his blog. it's too complicated for me. he is also a frequent contributor to the new york review of books can, the editor of the american prospect, a columnist at the new york magazine, author of two books, "hilary's term" and "left for dead." and he has appears in the "new york times," the washington post, harpers, the nation, and the new republic.

both of these gentlemen are high-enjournallists with wide-ranging experience. bill mcgowan, the author of "only man is vial." the tragedy of sri lanka, which want an award which i neglected to note, and coloring the news, how political correctness has corrupted american journalist, for which he won the national press award. and weapon for the bbc, "the new york times," the washington post, new republic, and a extra variety of publications. a frequent commentator, former senior fellow the manhattan institute, a fellow at the policier in and lives in new york city, which is why he was almost late today.

[applause] >> our format is simple. each -- bill will go force. they discussed this between them. bill will go first. his presentation is based on his new book, "gray lady down" about "the new york times." he goes first for 20 minutes, mike will respond for 20 minutes, 15 minutes of rebuttal and surrebuttal, and then over the floor to you. one suggestion -- more than a suggestion. a strong request. when you ask a question, make it a question. no speeches. identify yourself, who you are, are you with an organization in particular that you want to be identified with, and then ask a pointed question. let's begin. >> first like to day thank you to fred for organizing this, and to frank for lending us this

lovely space. it's nice to be back in the burrow of my birth. the burey of my parents' birth, and nice to see my brother who lives here as well, a retired police sargeant, -- sergeant and a graduate of st. francis. nice to see michael. so let's get going. i think the best way to start, i'd like to take you all back on a little trip in time. we're heading back to the year 1972. some analogous period to today. the u.s. was involved in a divisive and somewhat disappointing military intervention overseas and there was polar rising cull tower war -- culture war at home, himmize versus hard hatts or hard hat versus hippies, in september 1972, national review

published an article about the times with the headlines, is it true what they say about the times? it was cowritten by john outen jerry and patrick mains, one a former reporter at the new york world telegram, the other, the assistant at national review. at that time spiro agnew was talking about the nattering anyway bobs of negativism. richard nixon was livid of the publishing of the pentagon papers. the focus of the national review article were charms of left-leaning bias. conservatives have long dismissed this times as a hotbed of liberalism, biased beyond recommendation.

in an attempt to example -- and five issues, buckley's 1970 run for the senate estate, in the antiballistic missile treaty and vote in 1969. the failed supreme court nomination of appellate -- federal appellate court judge clip meant haynesworth, and president nixon's decision to mine the harbor. and they concluded with the new standards of the times more broadly emulated. particularly by magazines and networks, the nation would be far better informed and more honorably served. that's was clear lay tribute to the journalism practiced and upsell by abe rosenthal, then executive editor of the new york time, from 1969 to 1986. a journalism based on

professional detachment as much as possible, impartiality. rosen tall was termed to keep the paper straight. he once said it was personality to keep a firm right handotiller because the news room would naturally drift to the left. he believed t there should be no editorial needles in which reporters used their personal political opinions to go after anybody. he believed there should be no pejorative quotes that were either unattributed or made somebody look bad that weren't fair. rosenthal was very patriotic and was extremely wary of the counterculture and wary of conflicts of interest in his reporters. when he learned a woman he hired had once had an afire with a politician in philadelphia -- it may have been the mayor -- he famously fired her and said and i'll pay deference to the fact

this is a catholic institution -- i don't care if my reporters bleep the elephants but if they do they can't cover the circus. so least fast-forward a bit. it's 2003. in the wake of the jason blair majorrerrism scandal, tv comedians are having a field day. david lettererman said, all the news that's fit to print? they have a new one. the new slogan is, we make it up. in the summer of 2004, the paper's first public editor or reader0s advocate, an office crated in response to the jason blair scandal, push -- published a column. he said, if you think the times plays it down the middle on divisive social issues, you're reading the paper with your eyes closed. indeed insuring october 2004,

just a few months after his column, jay of the national review, echoing many conservatives, wrote a repudiation of that article advocating going times-less. this is a far cry from the '72 article and buckly's oft stated assertions stating that going without the times is like going without arms and legs. >> a lot of other controversial issues in 2005 and 2006. there were charges the times was a treasonous organization for publishing scoops on the national security agency's surveillance of terrorism and terror jim -- terrorism suspects at home and broad. they were called the al jazeera

times, and then the wikileaks leaks, and the state department diplomatic cables. accusations of treason, denouncements, proclamations of possible prosecutions from officials, probably blowing smoke for public consumption. let me say right near, i don't advocate going timeless in the least. i don't think the times is treasonous, but i don't think its sense of post-national patriotism is the same astra divisional notions of patriotisms. i certainly don't think it could she bombed, at ann coulter once thundererred. i was published prominently in it. i consider the times an important national resource, albeit an endangered one, and i confess to being one of the new yorkers referred to it simply as

the paper. preenter it enterpreinternet, i would go to the until news stand and find it if i was out of town. sadly, those days that young man and that "new york times" is gone. for generations it was considered the gold standard of american journalism and the institution was considered central to the public discourse and policy debates at the core of our democracy and our shared civic life, yet i don't think for this generation it could be quad what it was for dwight mcdonald's generation, the principal point of contact for the world. nor could it be seen as necessary proof of the world's existence, a barometer of pressure and center of sanity. some may think the times are irrevel but i think it's more necessary than ever largely

because much of the new media doesn't have the resources or talent than "the new york times," nor can they provide the common theme we need as a nation and establishing what is true and what is not. these times still might demand the times but they certainly demand a much better times than we're getting. a lot of people focus on the decline of the times by citing the big ticket scandals,en constitutional blunders and financial problems. i'd rather focus on the everyday reporting. i think, to be sure, the still can produce impressive journalist and serves democracy quite well. it was excellent on the b.p. oil spill. i think it served democracy quite well by showing some of the diplomatic and strategic blunders of the bush administration in the first couple years of the iraq

intervention. i think it's been pretty good on the plight of order people in this recession. don't think it's been particularly good on obama's solutions to the recession but i think it's humanized and brought home the suffering and ordeal that a lot of people are going through. unfortunately, a tide of left liberal politically correct orthodoxy has caused the paper to change from honest broker to that of a partisan cheerleader. the editorial page has always followed its own agenda, the problem is it's bled over into the news report and are spread between the lines of news reporter, bill keller says the "times" practices a journalism of verification. i say it practices the journal

ism of values protection, and bias has created a journalism at odds with its historical mission of rapiderring the news without fear or favor. even if you do support a more partisan "times" and there are those that believe news organizations should take up ideology items like they do in europe, britain in particular. even if you support a more partisan "time" times, i think there's city stihl cause for -- still cause for concern because the liberal values these ideas are often very ill served by the paper that embodies them or is said to embody them most ardently. john dewey, the great professor,

educator and philosopher, is credited with defining the vital habits of democracy. the ability to follow an argument, to grasp a point of view of another, to expand the boundaries of understanding, and to debate alternative purposes of what might be pursued. i don't think the "times" measures up to the standard. the times hat narrowed understanding. i don't think it gives enough sense of the alternative pursuits, and i think in raising -- instead of raising the tone of public discourse and making it more intellectually sew -- sophisticated. it dumbs it down. i think that here i'd like to go into a couple of the issues where i think "times" faulty journalism and biases have not

enhanced our democratic culture, processes, and our democratic policymaking. this material is taken largely from the latest book, "gray lady down." weighs in at 270 pace soyuz have to skim the tree tops their meet the time limit. so if anybody wants to go into deeper detail in the q & a, please feel free but i will stay out of the weeds. the issues i will tour as briefly as i can are race and affirmative action, secondly, immigration and diversity, and the third will be the war on terror. these are the three issues in the book that i think are best presented and they're also the three issues that bear on our democratic life in the most important way. if i have time i will get into the effect of "times" journalism

on the tone and tenor of our civic culture, turning to race and affirmative action, i lead with a story about being in philadelphia and mississippi, the year 1966, watching as a group of reporters were standing in a circle with some activists, holding hands and singing we by shall overcome." felt it was appropriate and didn't join it. that sense of professional detachment, very much a product of the institutional culture that was drilled into every reporter during the rosen tall years, has not endured. today when it comes to the issue of race, "times" is sitting front and center singing in the choir and singing with a gusto, an orthodoxy of racial engagement governs personnel policy of the news room and the political sensibility between

coverage. i think we see that in stories that involve historical racism, i injustices and atrocities of the past. some of newsworthy. things concerning the trial of emmett till -- the retrial of the emmett till murders. of course newsworthy. others seem to stoke racial guilt and seem to be printed in pursuit of emotional repairations. there's a certain script the "times" reports on, victimization, and you see that in its reporting on criminal profiling, a hobby horse that will get hoard -- ahold of a report by a think tank and then goes to up to three or four times in the space of a couple weeks and reports there are more black kids being stopped and

frisked than white kids. the katrina catastrophe. in one case there was a major hoax perpetrated on a reporter who used a self-described victim of the katrina catastrophe to present herself as a victim of the bureaucratic inertia had her holed up in aney bag hotel in queens, having to go to the hospital and her children living with her. in fact she had never been anywhere near katrina when it struck. she said she was from biloxi. she didn't even have custody of the kids she said she had. and she never went to the hospital. she was never in the hospital. in fact she was wanted for bank -- for check kiting and check fraud. and she was arrested shortly

after the "times" piece ran and short he after that the "times" standard editor issued a memo to reporters saying we'll have no more single source stories. the reporter took her at her word and never check any of the public records available to check. we have the awful story of the duke rape case, which stewart teller, journalist of national review, wrote a wonderful book about. which he called it a fable of evil rich men running amok and abusing black women. it was too delicious. he said they should take -- the "times" should take out a billboard in times square and apologize, but they never did and never an editorial note to readers or anything acknowledging just how bad the "times" reporting had been, how much it slandered the lacrosse players in question, and how much it needed to take can't for

what it had done. i look at black politicians. historically i look at their treatment of malcolm x in 1965 when he was asass senated. the times said he was an extraordinary but twisted man, turning gifts to evil purposes and decried his ruthless and fanatical belief in violence but in 2004 in relation to a harlem exhibition, it referred to malcolm x as a civil rights giant. and then there's al sharpton. al sharpton has more lives than a cat. when you think of just what kind of racial arson and agitation this man is responsible for, the riots in crown heights and i think one of the worst was his role in the massacre at freddie's market up on 125th

125th street in harlem, where eight people were killed. was that the case? seven or eight people were killed. sharpton had gotten on the radio and said we will not stand by and allow them -- meaning white landlords -- in fact the landlords were black -- will not allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business on 125th street. one very bright commentator, i think one of the sharpest pencils in the box -- wrote one time that the memory into which freddie's disappeared fits the pattern of mr. sharptop's political career. he draws in the press and selected rubes -- i think he is referring to the "times --" and assures them he is reformed. i would mention that after the freddie's massacre, there was a

story in the "times" i remember vividly with the headline, sharpton buoyant in the storm. we head jesse jackson's love child. now, the double-standards there are pretty vivid. i think if ralph reed had fathered a child out of wedlock and used his organizations funds to support her, that would probably be bannered on the front payment of the paper -- front page of the paper. instead, jesse jackson's similar transgression and actions were buried on page 27 in a single column. obama, the "times" has been in bed with him since the beginning. they delayed for an entire year stories about his relationship with the reverend jeremiah write they should have gone into and they were shamed into it.

abc news got a video of wright, and only after that the writer started write about what wright was all about. they also allowed obama to get away with minimizing his relationship to the former weather terrorist -- former member of the weatherman, bill ayers. david axlerod said he was somebody he knew from the neighborhood. in fact they had a relationship over ten years in several different venues and a couple foundations. they were closer. i would like to switch now to immigration and just look at just how much immigration has been seen as a fait accompli. there's -- nathan in the new republican in 1993 says when you look at mass immigration, we have been reverted to a policy

of mass immigration without making a does do that. i wrote a piece about the reform acts which lifted the quotas at the time of the democratic party, which backed it, and "times," said it would not swell the roles of immigrants with -- wouldn't change the demographic character of the country, nor would there by millions of people lining up. in fact both have happened. whether the demographic change is good or bad makes no difference to me. what is important is that this was a huge pivot, a pivotal period, a pivotal moment in immigration history and the "times" was completely at a loss to understand it. since then the "times" has followed a very proimmigration script. this goes particularly in areas

like alien criminallallity. there was one case where the el salvadoran gang ms13 sent an assassin to new york to get an i.c.e. agent, who was very good at breaking up some of the rings on long island. they got the guy before he was able to go after him. but the "times" never did the story. and one of my immigration -- friends in washington said, what is it going to take to get their attention? other ways they treated immigration somewhat glibbly and without the gravity they really should, the issue of alien -- sanction wear city -- sanctuary cities which came up in the 2008

republican primaries, sanctuary cities where illegals can live without documentations being checked and no ramifications for crimes. sanctuary cities had a sci-fi ring and she said next time you hear a political ranting, say, wasn't that where keaneu reeves was trying to get to in the matrix? the "times" has been extremely, if not absolutely silent, on a dual citizenship. these are issues that we're facing now with 93 different countries offering that. dual citizenship leading to dual loyalties. it's been extremely soft on islamic immigration. won't goer in issues of the different customs and values and attitudes that are, i think,

profoundly antidemocratic, inflaming women, female gentle mutilation, polygamy, and the issue of honor killings, which is an issue around the country, but you wouldn't know it from "times." and i'd also get to the idea that the "times" has been very soft on the ideological nate tour of islam imterms of the imams they featured. the featured one after 9/11 as a moderate voice. authorities new that in san diego he may have given hashber to two of the terrorists and two of the terrorist is might have been praying at his mosque in brooklyn. i'd say that when it comes to immigration reform, the "times"

just invokes demagoguery. if -- when people called into capital hill against the immigration vote, they're columnist called it they were just robots, doing what their party leader toll them to do. and then they invoked the nativism canard, that it's part of our history. on the war on terror, i will just close by saying that soft on islam approach when it comes to immigration is projected into the war on terror. the war on terror is seen -- the tools used to fight their war on terror are seen as more dangerous to american democratic life than the threat that islamic jihaddism represents. this comes from a set of ideas about the nature of -- i think the europeans probably could teach us a lesson on that.

there's too much likening of the crackdown on muslim suspects and those who might give them scccor to the internment of the japanese. these are completely different historical occurrences but the "times" lumps them all together. in summation, i would say, i'd like to get into some of what i can't get into right now, in the rebuttal, but just want to pose a question. one of thomas jefferson's most famous quips was that he would rather live in a nation without a government than a nation without newspapers. and i wonder if he was reading "times" right now, whether he would say the same thing. thank you very much. [applause]

>> okay. >> well, i'm in a slightly odd position here, i think, because i don't work for "the new york times." i'm not a spokesman for "the new york times." i'm paid by the newspaper that is arguably -- no probably in terms of world audience and looking to the future with web overtaking print as it will some day -- i work for the paper that is probably times' greatest english language world competitor. so maybe i should denounce "times" and read the guardian. i'm not a spokesman for the paper. i have my criticisms of it. we'll get into those. i think bill maked some fair criticisms in the book, which i read, and the "times" has certainly made its share of

errors in recent years. i think the duke lacrosse coverage was bad. i don't think there's any question about that. i actually -- this is an interesting point, too. i don't know many people outside of "the new york times" which defends its institutionally, but i don't know many liberals who continue to defend that particular coverage. i think the "times," as bill mentioned a story that "times" did a story about john mccain, a story about a relationship he had, friendship with a female lobbyist, wink, wink. implying the things you think were being implied. i had rumors, as i'm sure you heard the rumors in advance of the story being published -- about what the "times" did have and didn't have. there's no question in my mind that based on what ended up on the page, they should not have

bon with the story. didn't seem like a very good judgment to put it politely. so, certainly they have made some mistakes. jason blair, obviously a black eye. i think there's probably something in general to bill's sense of the paper's natural institutional biases. i want to be careful here about how i phrase this. i think one of the reasons i was asked to do this -- by the way, thank you, fred, for asking me and frank and thank you -- at it nice to see you, and thanks to st. francis college. one of the reasons i was asked to do this, while i'm certain lay liberal -- no question about that, and if you read my stuff you know i'm a liberal -- but i'm a critic to some extent of liberalism over the years. i have been critical to some extent of multiculturalism,

identity politics on left. my first book was -- there it is. can we just show it? it's an old book now. i actually -- i don't really agree with 100% of it anymore. >> played a role in helping him shape his ideas. >> i'm sure he's going to quote me against me in his rebuttal. that's fine. i have been somewhat critical of multiculturalism from a liberal perspective and that perspective being, in a nutshell, when we emphasize differences to such a great extent, we can forget about the things we have in common, and we can lose a sense of a common society in which we fight for and argue for a common good, and i become -- in things i have written, not just in that book but since, in the american prospect, i have become associated with that view, and i've been attacked quite harshly

by some on the left who disagree with my views. so, i think that's one of the reasons that i'm here. i will say that i do disagree with bill about the imperative of diversity and of dealing with diversity and trying to come to terms with it in this united states, in this new york, in this city. it is, of all, "the new york times," it's not the "kansas times." bill hark 's back to what he calls the golden age of "the new york times," and there's no question that the rosenthal era was a good one for the paper, and one in which the paper has much to be proud of. and there's much to respect. but i'm inherently suspicious of

golden ages. upon inspection they weren't always that golden. they weren't golden for everybody. i don't want to sound like a political collect hectoring uncle, but some of these things are just true, folks. some of these things are just true. in the great glory days that bill invokes, the fact is that if you have walked around "the new york times" newsroom in those days, 1967 or something, it was 98% men and 98%. why all right. that's how it was. but that wasn't appropriate for the world as it changed, as it progressed. it just wasn't appropriate. i don't think anybody could seriously defend that now. the "times" had to embrace tie diversity. it had to embrace the idea that it needed to hire more women,

more african-americans, latinos and so on. it had to do this. now, the young sulzberger, which -- the young sulzberger emphasized this above pretty much every other value. maybe that was overemphasis. maybe he was at bit too much of a zealot about it. maybe other values and other standards should have gotten more attention from him. i don't know. but on balance, it was certainly right to emphasize this. especially is a said before, in this city, as multihued as this city is and as diverse as this city is, and the "times" had to make a change, and many will remember that the metropolitan section of the "times," for

example, in the 1960s and '70s, didn't bother to cover the black communities and the latino communities very much at all. and this had to change. and it changed. and the change has come with some down sides. all change comes with some down side. nothing in this world is all good or all bad. and there have been some excesses and some mistakes that the paper has made, but they had to make this change, and on balance, it's far better, far better, that they make an attempt to cover these communities, not only here in new york but nationally. i don't believe -- you read bill's book and there's example after example after example -- 200 examples in the book of allegedly egregious things the paper has done, and at first

blush you might put this become down and say, my god, what a jeremiah, what a list of horrible sins. step back and think for a second. he's talking about 200 stories something like that over a period of 20 years. 20 years during which the newspaper has probably produced over 365 editions, probably 50 byline stories a day. i'm knock gotted a math. 360,000 stories? subdistract the business section and these other things. i don't think that the -- that bill produces is as as big of on indictment as he suggests there is, the "times" is reflecting changes and arguments and

tensions in society that not only the times is grappling with but many institutions are grappling with and are grappling with tremendous difficulty. the country has changed. the culture has changed. and i think a lot of this change has been for the good. i think most people think that most of this change has been for the good. there are people that thing that most of the change has not been for a good you have a section in the book where you're discussing the "times" coverage of gays and you criticize or seem to criticize a story or a series of stories about gay adoption. i'm asking this rhetorically, you don't actually have to answer this. i don't think you're on the side of saying that gay people aren't equipped to be good parents or

don't have the right to be parents but it seemed like you were saying that in the book. well, that's a judgment that -- how should a newspaper, an objective news column, handle that issue? should it give equal weight to both sides of that argument? i think that's a close call. i don't think it's absolutely clear that you should give equal weight to both sides of the argument. was the "times" to give equal wait to bull conner in 1964? i don't know. i'm not sure that that's the role of a newspaper. a newspaper has a civic role to play. bill quoted dwight mcdonald. a good quote. what was it? the principal point of contact with the real world.

>> for his generation, represented the prison pal -- principal point of contact with the real world. light in the loafers? i knew him. he touched the ground with one sole. >> tread on the ground lightly. >> right. i think the "times" probably was that in those days. but in those days, the "times" was occupied a much, much larger space in the journalistic universe, in the civic universe, than it occupies today. and this is another point i'd make, that isn't necessarily direct rebuttal of bill but is a point that i think is very important to keep in mind, as we have any discussion about the media in the united states today.

there's no more oracle in our media culture. that's long gone. it's disbursed the power and the influence is spread around. fred said, huffington post, $315 million according to america online? the daily beast bought "newsweek," not the other way around. a two-year-old web site bought "newsweek." we live in a very different media culture. there's no more walter cronkite who could say, in february of 1968, that he went over to vietnam and looked at it and decide it was unwinnable, and within two weeks public opinion went from 60 something -- 64-of 5% in support of the war to about 40% in support of the war. because of one man. 25%. i've looked at the gallup numbers. it's very stark.

it's also around the time of the tet offense simple. i think we can credit cronkite more than not. there's no more media culture like that. so in a sense, the "times" is -- i wouldn't say one among many equals because i think it's still obviously the leading newspaper in the united states. but it has to share a lot more -- has to share the atmosphere, the oxygen, with a lot more outlets than it ever used to, and that oxygen is much more contested now, and the whole media landscape is much more embattled now there was no such thing as a media critic in abe rosenthal's age, editing the paper. media critics started to pop up in the 1980s, it the "times"

gets nailed by everybody, all of its mistakes are exposed immediately. i think this is another important change. i don't assume that the "times" did not make mistakeness the 1950s and '60s, i a assume, rather, they weren't exposed by endless numbers of bloggers and media critics, another point about the so-called golden age. speaking of kris simples of the time times from the left, i can promise you that one could write a book -- and people have written books like bill's -- that take the "times" to task and citing nearly as men examples. bill cites a couple in the book that liberal critics -- hal rains -- criticizing how hal

raines was running the editorial pain in the clinton years. the editorial page in the clinton years is an important example. this is not the "times" being a liberal paper. liberals were furious. al raines was on a gee had against bill clinton and ran -- i did a count once. now i'm not remembering but i wrote a piece in the nation about this in 1999 or 2000 -- i think it was late 1999. you can look it up. but far, far, far more editorials criticizing bill clinton than criticizing ken starr and his prosecutorial tactics. the paper broke the whitewater story. i'll finish up in a couple minutes. the paper broke the it wouldwater story. kept on clinton pretty hard throughout his time in office.

the paper more recently -- it broke the elliott spitzer story. there's a democratic it didn't go soft on. david paterson, another issue it didn't go soft on. on the subject of the war, it's a much more pungent criticism in my mind, that the "times," like most american newspapers and news outlets, published far more stories basically taking the administration's line through brown quotes like the famous julie miller stories and there were many more -- than it ran critical of the administration's arguments for war against iraq. bill cites this, too, to his credit, a piece in the new york review of books. so, there are many, many

criticisms to be made from the left of "the new york times." what does all add up to? bill keller would say, i guess, and not without justification, if we're pissing off both sides, maybe we're doing something right. i'll say, on balance, whatever its errors, it's an excellent, excellent newspaper. has anybody in this room quit reading "times" on principle? okay. we've got -- let the record show that out of, what, 80 people, we have about eight hands. all right. well, that's something. but by and large, i don't think anybody quit reading the "times" after jason blair. i don't think anybody quit reading the "times --" very few people quit reading "times"

after many of those things. if you're trying to keep up what's going noncairo and not reading the "times," you're missing something. their coverage is great. it's very good for democracy. [applause] >> 10-15 minutes now to exchange rebuttal and surrebuttal. >> i want to ask michael one question that involves the issue of double standards that time times. michael once famously wrote an american prospect blog piece heyline of, keller must go, and salzburger, jr., who i do not call pinch. he took his from his father,

punch. but i'd like to know, having done that, how you've gotten both your books reviewed, you were the subject of a very glowing profile in 2006 about young liberals sort of fighting back. meanwhile, i've been blacked out twice in both of my books. the first time, the editor of the book review wassed aled canada addled enough to go on the record and saying i'm not sure we should review this book because it's not proper to review a book about a newspaper like this that is so critical of a newspaper like this. the second time i was promised a review, and then the editor invoked a policy squabble he is

having with my publisher. i sent as a fig leaf. we have to say in terms of ideological double standards -- and i go into the politics of the times book review and media -- that the "times" fawns on left liberal journalists and media and authors and it either ignores or insults those coming from the right. don't particularly think i'm coming from the right in my criticism. i'm coming from the point of view of good journalism. michael says there's 200 stories i picked out. this is a carriage went -- this charge i went through that i was cherry-picking. i wanted to show they were representative. i did not do a quantitative

study that would determine the representation, but i think people got the drift that when you pile these up more and more, that this is the norm rather than the exception. as to this point that the "times" was at one point during its golden age, all male and all white, probably true. i agree, there are always problems in nostalgia -- i don't know who said it, i wish i had my google here, but moss stall gentleman -- nostalgia is the rust of memory, shakespeare? >> thank you, google. >> that being said, i think michael misses my point when i'm critical of diversity. i'm not critical of diversity as personnel policy as long as it's within the law. what i'm critical about

diversity, two things. fred used this phrase once. mandated diversity. where the state comes in and says, you have to have a certain quota, a certain number. i'm more concerned with diversity as an ideological policy, where it bleeds out into the news coverage, where it translates into a kind of solicitude toward minorities, where it translates into a kind of demographic -- translates into endorsing the politics of proportionallism, set-asides, quotas, university admissions, where it translates into vilifying those who are trying to roll bang affirmative action programs, such as ward connerly in california, prop 209.

connerly was the subject of an extremely insulting and demeaning magazine story, the gist of which was he wasn't black enough and he was a self-hating black, and that's why he was leading the leather to roll back affirmative action in california. horrible, horrible story. the evident to -- the effort to raise standards at kuhny in 1997, was interpreted by bob herbert, a columnist with the "times," as ethnic cleansing because it was felt that minorities wouldn't be able to qualify if open admissions was terminate and standards were put in place that would make them have to attend either remedial classes or community colleges first. so, that's my truck with diversity. the other truck i have with die

veersty -- i thing as a progressive, michael should be concerned about this -- is the idea of community in very much a progressive value. it's also a conservative value as well. it cut both ways. the movement in america does not have a red state-blue state divide. it has pat buchanan and it has the saul lynnski's successors on the other. at it interesting how robert putnam, the famous sociologist at harvard, who wrote the report and later the book, bowling alone, about social isolation in america, had been working for a number of years on assessing the impact of diversity on civic engagement and democratic participation. he did not like the results he got. essentially he said that it

places with the most diversity in america with the lowest levels of social trust, social engagement. people tended to hunger -- hunker down. they became couch potatoes and didn't go the bake sale or join the chamber of commerce. people hunker down in order to escape. yet the "times" promotes diversity as an aggressive creed, and this is not just diversity as a personnel policy but diversity at demographic reality. charles glow saying to the tea partyers you want your country back, you're not going to get it. welcome to america, the remix. it's that triumphalism and the diversity and the cult of

ethnicity that is not only bad for our democratic life but it's bad for progressivism itself, and i could enumerate that, and i hope to write about this more. many progressive today are actually regresssive progressives, and when it comes to particularly when it comes to customs and practices dealing with islam. i'd like to say that -- i about the gay adoption because it borders a little bit on a canard. i'm all for gay marriage. i grew up across the street from a gay couple, george and jim. at that time they had a woman living with them who turned out to be a bag lady they brought up in suburban 1960s northern westchester for cover. our kindergarten teachers in the town i grew up on the hudson

turn out to be gay. since they retired they ran up their rainbow jolly roger flag and nobody seemed to care. gay adoption, gay parenting, i don't think the research is in firm enough yet. that's not to say that i think kids should spend time in foster care or go without parenting. but the point -- i think michael should read the section closer. my opinion is the research is not as complete it's needs to be and the stories that have one written about gay parenting and gay adoption are just doggerral, the two magazine stories in particular that were almost impossible to get through, and i think reflected the confusion that the issue generates itself. so, anyway, that's what i have to say for now. >> are we trying to finish this whole event by 8:00?

okay. i should answer your question first. actually, they didn't review my first book. so there's exhibit a out the window. >> called for keller -- >> i did do that. yeah. and i can't even remember why that was. i think it was because -- they sat on the nsa story for a year. ...

>> i was talking when my first remarks about the concept of common good. i wrote this essay in the american prospect. i don't know why they decided to do this. i guess you may have come you have a hypothesis. you may be right but devoted peace that talked about what influenced my essay was having about washington. that was kind of a objectively too. i don't want to set modest but in circles in washington what i wrote was being talked about a lot so they wrote a piece about it. they did run a picture. it's true. but my record with the books is a very good. -- with books isn't very good. what do i want to say? i think to talk a little more about the problem of diversity, yeah, i see the distinction between newsroom diversity as a

policy and diversity as an ideological, whatever you said, an ideological drama. i do see that distinction. and i guess sometimes, sometimes the times lapses into a bad direction on that point. but we are in, you know, we're in a period in this country's history where we are having deeply, deeply contested battles on every front. notches in the pages of the "new york times," but everywhere. about diversity as a value. it does suit some extent, it doesn't leave much room for nuance. i'm one who is trying to do nuance on this question over the last 15 years or so.

it hasn't always worked out, you know, the way i would have liked it to have worked out. we are in a historical period where we are fighting this question to the nail every day. and i do think that some of the reaction to the obama presidency has to do with the kind of question. i'm not going to hurl javelins of acquisition at tea party people about race. i'm not going to sit here and do that, but i think there's no question that they are in our media, there are representations of two americas, and they are very intensely at odds with each other. this is not all americans by the way. it's like 30% of americans on this site and 30% of americans on this site. the other 40% are somewhere in the middle, and sort of agree with both side here and there. actually i think those 40% can

do more to agree with the progressives and they do with the conservative side. otherwise "the new york times" would be losing circulation like this and it would've been a faster judgment made by society at large as "the new york times" was failing the country. i don't think that judgment has been made by the citizens of this country. i don't think it's been made by the media consumers of this country. "the new york times" stock isn't difficult position. they're having whatever difficulties they have. but they are still selling a million whatever copies a day. they are selling a lot more copies than, say, the "washington times," which is maybe the right wing equivalent. if "the new york times" is everything that bill says it is, then its opposite number is newspaper in "washington times," which some of you may not even know exists, but it was certified reverend moon 30 years ago. and it exists because he's willing to lose whatever he

loses on that $30 million the year. whatever the number is. astonishing amount of money over the years. they've never gotten their circulation that i'm aware of above 100,000, let alone a million. so conservatives like to let the free market test decided things. the free market is decided. "the new york times" is a success. the "washington times" is not much of the success. it is underwritten by an extremely wealthy man. >> fine, fine, fine. that's my conclusion. [applause] >> there are microphones. if you want to talk, move into the aisle and tell us who you are, what organization you're connected to come and ask a brief question. >> stand up. >> michael myers.

and executive director of the new york civil rights coalition. i want to ask michael tomasky a question of diversity because i don't think you got the point. the point is that you can hire minorities, hire people on what? standards, ethical standards of journalism so that the complaint about jayson blair was not the he was high because he was black, but because the editor, the white male editors and people above, let their standards down it didn't check, didn't treat him as they would treat anybody else who is a journalist because he was black. and secondly with respect to diversity in the newsrooms, as bill was talking about in terms of coverage, a lot of the new reporters, typically the lack reporters, particular black

reporters have been hired with points of view about race, about communities. and they cover, blacks cover blacks, blacks cover civil rights and the only from the paper people who don't agree with them. >> let's gather a few questions and then turn the questions over. >> mike white. my question is about cognitive dissonance. is the times or whatever it is, wherever it is, earnest and philosophically consistent? or is it making calculated decisions about its financial survival and benefit? and example i'll give you on this because i pay a lot of attention to real estate development and associated politics. and as i go back in time, look at their coverage of the demand

of abuse, or for instance, the columbus circle development, and i compared to their coverage of what i think is a very big story, which has to do with their real estate partner, bruce ratner, and it takes place after they engaged in buying a building with eminent domain for their new headquarters. i don't see consistency. >> can i i take that question? okay, you want to answer both of these now? >> you're getting into some of the contradictions, some would say, hypocrisy between the values that the times preaches on its editorial page and its behavior as a corporate entity with the bottom line and also profile. some of it is another -- aside from that use of eminent domain to create space for its new

headquarters. and issues such as executive overcompensation the times has rails and rails about that in the paper, inevitably on its editorial page. and inevitably reports surfaced in the news report about it. however, even though corporate governance is one of arthur sulzberger, jr.'s hobbyhorses, the times executives are way overcompensated. as a matter fact, there have been movements on the board to suggest they get their bonuses back, and they have. so that's one thing. opening up this question to this larger issue of the times finances, michael, you're wrong. the times is not read by a million people a day anymore. circulation just sell this quarter, 7.3%. bringing it down below a million

for the first time since the mid '80s. and in terms of the market tests of whether the times is successful or not, i do not think that the "washington times" is the correct doppelgänger or comparison. i think the correct comparison is "the wall street journal," which outstrips sales and circulation of the times on a national basis. and by the way, of a surprise, michael goodwin of the near post told me recently that the times is only read or bought by 200,000 people in new york. it's really staggering. i think that they have actually since the golden age, towards the end of that golden age, they were faced with huge financial difficulties, white flight and municipal problems of the city

were causing, in conjunction with the new a literacy we had college graduates who just did have a gene for public, didn't read the times anymore, -- i haven't spent my time in academia. but they were market testing. they were running focus groups. a lot, i believe a lot of their, i mean, they have two sections, thursday and the sunday style section. they are expanding their softness, their consumer news, their lifestyle news. a lot of their day coverage is driven by demographics, by marketing. so yes, i think that financial concerns, although they would like to admit it, they have to. financial concerns determine what the cover and how they write about.

>> point taken about "the wall street journal," the reason i mention the "washington times," bill, was if the "new york times" is what you say shot through in its news column with subjectivity and bias, i don't think that's "the wall street journal" yet. it's just its editorial page. but that is the "washington times." so in that sense the "washington times," that you describe in your book, that's what i meant. michael myers, i take your point, points to him or talk about your second point. i'm ignoring your first point. look, maybe black reporters have a point of view about a black neighborhood. maybe that's true. white reporters do, too. white reporters always did. now, this gets to one of the core questions about the whole history of diversity and cultural is in in this country, and is very key to the whole debate.

was the old pre-diversity point of view in america, at american institutions, was it some default purely objective point of view that was civic with a capital see, and completely deracinated of any kind of bias at all? or was it just the point of view of the man who happened to run that thing back then, and you know it had its own biases and its own subjectivity. this is a very important question that is very hotly debated. i'll stop there. >> frank. when i was doing my graduate work, i extensively refuse "the new york times." my dissertation was on the city state relations and "the new

york times" coverage over a period of 50 or 60 years was terrific on the subject. now i want to address you about today. and i'm talking from the standpoint of my piece of diversity. i am italian, italian american. and i'm roman catholic. i take both of those things very seriously. i'm wondering as a reader of "the new york times," whether you think that i can trust the integrity and honesty of the newspaper, when it covers subjects such as those relating to my ethnicity and my religion, reporting on those in a fair and accurate, in a trustworthy way?

>> what would you think if i said yes? >> i think you're not catholic or entire. >> i am actually half italian. but it is true i am not catholic, but i am part italian. look, i don't know. i don't read every word of their coverage in those issues. you know, i us into something or talk about the problems with the catholic church and the child abuse things. well, i can't speak, okay, i will not speak to the particulars of the times coverage of that issue. it's not fresh enough in my mind. bill can do that i'm sure. but i would just make the point that, you know, those things apparently did happen. there are certain realities in the world "the new york times" didn't create.

we did go into iraq on the basis we're going to find weapons to find weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. "the new york times" didn't create that reality. the catholic church is having these problems. transixteen create that reality. >> i am not a time but am catholic. i grew up with a lot of italians, and am dating one. [inaudible] >> so i'll have to pass on the italian thing. i do think though that in terms of the diversity calculus inside the newsroom, the times has not followed through on that. it doesn't have its representative italian reporters and editors in the same way that it has its representatives african-american or latino. it's not part of a mix. i think they love the white ethnics into, you know, one big mess. the catholic thing, i won't go

as far as bill donohue and say that bill donohue you is the president or chairman -- executive director of the catholic league thinks the time is a deeply bigoted newspaper against catholics. i will not go as far as archbishop dolan saying that, but i will say that the times often seems distant from realities of catholicism. right after i published the news, the second wave of the church sex scandal broke, and i was unrated and tv and listening asked questions about this. and having gone to catholic schools, including a very good catholic high school, having diocesan priests, some of whom were brought up on charges, or

however you want to put it, knowing some of my schoolmates who had bad experiences, some of whom actually sued, that the narrative that was carried in the times was much different from my own personal experience. donoghue puts it rather bluntly when he says the catholic church doesn't have a pedophilia problem. it has a homosexual problem. first of all i think the use of the term pedophilia to describe that scandal was inaccurate, because most of the victims up to 90% were postpubescent, which qualifies as data as the romans called it. [inaudible] >> excuse me. thank you, henry. you're always good for those

things. so i think the use of the term pedophilia and had argument with bill o'reilly on the factor one night about this, and, of course, you know, he was very blunt and didn't have much patience for the but i think it's important because essentially it made these priests who are abusing their authority and power and influence over these kids to be baby molesters, as opposed to people who are abusing their power and influence over these kids were postpubescent, 14, 50. and what is there was a kid in my high school who wound up suing who claimed his molestation started when he was 17 and continued until he was a junior at holy cross. and i remembered the first day going to my high school, and

assembly, they said look, you 14, you're in ninth grade, freshman year, most of your 14, others will be 14 soon, you are men now. you are responsible for your choices and decisions you make. that's the generational perspective that has changed much, and maybe it was a smokescreen, but what i'm saying is that i think that the way the times reported that scandal was completely off. >> i want to get a couple more questions here. speak of my name is eric. it's kind of another facet of the diversity question. i think most of us would agree that the times is very much a paper of a particular social class. i know, you might call the golden age. when i was reading the paper in the 1970s and i was seeing the

edge for boarding schools and summer camps, i knew that wasn't quite where i was at in reality. and i think, the question i have is, a question, statement, your response, i feel that the times approach to diversity is reflective of a social class. the fact that made a mess out of it is reflective of the social background when you see the newsroom was 98% white. i think there's a reason why that was. most of us i think in this room, you know, as you say it's at "the new york times." most of us in new york live diversity. we live with people. we are related with people of a variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds. but in the times environment, that's still a bit exotic. and does that affect your

approach? >> let's get one more question and then -- [inaudible] >> say it louder. >> put the microphone up to your mouth. >> the question i have, how can you talk for more than an hour and not mention the run up to the iraq invasion, with the garbage put out by miller, she had editors speech sir, let me interrupt you. that's come up repeatedly. you were not paying attention. let's get another question. >> if i i can just add something. it did not by itself drive us into iraq. >> or israel and the palestinians. not a word. >> outside of the purview of my book i mostly focus on domestic issues. >> yes? >> bring the mic to this gentleman here, please.

>> hi. my name is fred. it seems to me that you could list 200 stories that you did like in the times as well as the 200 stories you didn't like. and on balance you would have a newspaper that makes mistakes, and a newspaper that does well. >> well, you can do that and come back a couple years from now, spend enough time as i did and let's see what you have a. >> i have dj that i have read the times all my life, and let me say that having been a publisher for a periodical, i think real interests, or i become a student of anything i read, which also includes "the wall street journal." "the wall street journal" since murdoch has taken over, while it

certainly remains an excellent paper, is considerable leakage in what they are covering, what they are now doing and what they used to do. and their golden age is gone as well. the fact that they -- body don't see -- as against the grand notion that it is not good for democracy, you have listed what seems to me nitpicking. and haven't addressed that big grand issue about whether the times is good for the democracy or not. what i heard from thi the chairn who didn't like their coverage of the catholic church -- >> do we wind up? i want to get a couple more questions. >> i think it's more than nitpicking. >> let me get a couple more questions and then answered

freddie and other people. anyone else want to answer -- want to ask a question? >> henry is required to ask a question. it's in the city charter. [laughter] >> one thing you didn't ask the question, which i think is very important, which constitutes rule at 18 i. and that question is is it good for the. [laughter] no one has talked about that. and the anti-israel has a dachshund has a track -- >> since we have two non-jews i think it will be very interesting. we are coming to the end of the evening so i want to give each of these two gym in a few minutes to sort of wrapup, give us their thoughts and then we will let people go home and get dinner. [inaudible]

>> i thought u. henninger microphone to other people. >> -- i thought you were handing the microphone to other people. >> i'm edward hoffman. i wish this had been entitled is the times still worth reading. two things, one about philosophy. you asked for the people gave of their times subscriptions. i did as result of what i felt was disgraceful reporting and commentary regarding the tea party and the congresswoman being shot in arizona. i mean, journalism was at its worst. and i'm wondering, that is bleeding over into the rest. secondly, as regarding accuracy. i have a friend who is serving in iraq. a number of years ago, the new

times when the bass is happening, reported there is a terrible attack which involved his unit. and i e-mailed him and he said it never happened apparently what the times is doing was using lines. they got a report, they ran with it. so i wish i could believe what they say is going on. but between the editorial page off the wall and the fact that i could trust them on other stories, i'm wondering if the times is any more worthy of being read in any other paper. [applause] >> a quick mention for michael. there seems to be sort of a given -- >> who are you? >> my name is gavin. there seems to be a given here that all races, genders, special press and groups need equal distribution at any news source in order to give a solid picture

of what the news is. and no one has ever said why, that just seems to be an accepted fact. and i don't i don't understand why that is. it seems to me that in your times was white male in the '70s, and it was more accurate than it is today since we came up with this agenda were everyone has to be equally represented. attorney reporting seems like a very esoteric pursuit. i want to go, look at anything, he's the english-language document, record it properly, who, what, where, when, why. why does everyone have to do this equally? i mean, it seems like insisting that -- >> let me hold you there. >> all dance hall performers are from the midwest. we should have some single moms in there. >> we got the gist. >> why don't you take five minutes to answer this gentleman's question and the two prior questions. >> to the issue of nitpicking, i can say that if you come back, if you think you can find

something through the same rigorous process of several years, more power to you. i don't think you will. as to the question of whether someone's ethnic or racial identity makes him a better reporter on any given subject, i would say there is a question on certain stories of access, whether the identity and access translates into better reporting is a different story. i spent two years in sri lanka reporting on the civil war there. i spoke one of the local languages. but i think that i did just as well as anybody who would have done better who happened to be of south asian background. i don't think you need to be of

a certain ethnicity or race or color. and that i object to. i don't mind giving people a break. i don't mind, you know, you know, giving, you know, the opportunities, you know, that anybody deserves. but at the same time i don't think that we should have beats that are reserved for certain races. [applause] >> and my experience is it doesn't work either. it just creates resentment in the newsroom and bad journalism spea...

>> who said that because christian -- the christian right was gaining force during the bush administration, that, gosh, we are in a theocracy. the arizona shooter -- the arizona antiimmigration -- antiillegal immigration law was met by linda greenhouse with an image that came out of nazi, germany. so, i think these -- that the "times" and the left has a lot to answer for, too. and maybe this is because of the internet. maybe people get more slashing and want attention. i think that it substracts from gravitas and the credibility of these people.

>> mike, take the last word. >> okay. i'm against nazi analogies in most cases, unless you can make a really precise analogy about something that the government of nazi germany did today that you are seeing today. if you can make a precise analogy and make it stick, it's fair game. but calling people nazis, -- i wrote a critical piece. jew -- did he leave in there you are. i don't think anybody says that there has to be equal numbers. don't think anybody says if there's 42% of the population is x, then 42% of the newsroom has to be x. i don't anybody says that. i do think that what people say

is, on balance, it's better to make an effort to have this kind of newsroom diversity and to represent different ideas and points of view, and that -- i've been on the end of running a magazine and trying to achieve that, and it's pretty hard to do, and you have to put effort into it. you have to -- >> it's hard to do for liberals. >> well, you -- >> young lady, would you please keep quiet in the first row. >> yeah, come on. but it's worth doing. to get to the question -- the question we're here to answer, democracy has to be nurtured by the civic institutions that we depend on to inform us and to do

that nurturing. part of that is providing information in the most unbiased way possible. but inevitably, some value judgments about what kind of society we have and want to have has to be made. now, any newspaper, in the "new york times," "the guardian," any so-called straight news outfit, any of the networks, anything like that, have to be very careful about balancing those two things. but i think it's legitimate to try to balance those two things. i don't think we want news organizations to be completely

morally neutral on moral questions of our time. now, "the new york times" might make a lot of mistakes along those lines, but on balance, i think it's trying to do a fair job. >> thank you, mike. >> before i thank both of them, both of our speakers, i want to say that bill's book, "gray lady down" is outside for anybody who wants to purchase it. i'd be glad to have mike's out there, too, but they're out of date. his magazine is democracy,, and he has a webs. thank you. [applause] >> i never said -- if you go to guardian.co.uk, go to comment and look on the page, you'll find my blog. i have a lot of conservative commentators that really give it

to me, so you can join the parade. >> for more information on will mcgowan and his book, visit the book's web site, gray lady down.net. >> tell us whileow chose football to show the racial tension in georgia. >> thanks to you and c-span for taking the time to talk to me today. this book has been out a few years, but one of the important components is that i interviewed the first black player who played on the all-white albany high school, albany, georgia, in all white football team in the mid-60s. and this player decided to go to the football camp, and the football camp was in the middle of the woods, along a creek and bad thinks could happen out there. the first night, one of the black players didn't make and it went home. the one who survived is grady caldwell.

now, this book, i think, is important to help us understand how football in the deep south helped further integration, and the forward of this work esurient -- is written by the a football coach. so i interviewed cody caldwell and other blacks who came of him and white coaches, like cook, who supported grady and black players who followed him. there are other themes in the book, but one theme is that high school sports, specifically football in the deep south, did help further integration in our country. >> you played on the football team later than grady caldwell did. what was the mood on the team? did people talk about integration? >> that's a great question.

i played for al been anywayin' 1972 and our team was probably 60% white, the rest black. but it was not discussed, that just a few years earlier that was an all-white football team, and the color barrier has been broken in terms of that particular school. it wasn't discussed be the players i played with there, and the interviews i think in this book would help the reader understand that many of the white players and black players who got to the football camp -- it was a hell of a camp -- by the mid-70s just wanted to be part of the team and race didn't matter. >> you write about how brutal the camp was. how much do you think that social challenges played into the physical challenges they had to go through at camp? >> the social challenges for black inside. >> yeah. >> no question about it. grady caldwell -- matter of fact, on january 27th, tomorrow night, grady will be in

town speaking at the civil rights institute as one of the first blacks to graduate from albany high. he told me about intimidation, name-calling and threats from white players, and white players admit it and i record them in the book. as i said a moment ago. ernest jenkins was another black -- two blacks went out on the team in '65 but earn n didn't make it through the federal night of -- the first night of camp. so tremendous pressure. >> what was the mood about the city of albany? did they see the integration of the fool team happening the city of albany and the state of georgia move forward? i think there's no question about it the people who saw that were the same people that marched with dr. martin luther king when he came here in 1961 and 1962, people involve in what was called the albany movement, and later grady, and larry west, hi family, ronie nelson, black

guys who played in this era, whose mothers understood if you integrated that team and didn't have blacks on one side and blacks on the other, and you could further integration in the community. >> was there a lot of pushback or tension from the community when grady played on his first game. >> there was pushback from his teammates, and i recorded their interviews, and they later regretsed that, and in the same season they realizeed that grady caldwell was a fellow with strong character and they recognized that. so there was early push, resistant,ess, and geraldine cook, the coach who just recently passed away, made a point. the cafeteria on camp, he would go sit by grady. and all the other white players would not accept him early on.

but coach cook did that. the other thing coach cook did, at night, when he file like there -- when he felt like there could be problems, he had grady sleep by his bunk. so people stepped forward like cook to help grady. >> tell us about the title. >> i got the title -- doing research, i interviewed players and relied on my own memory. it was hellish camp. get up for daylight, three practices a day, no water. they don't give you water to drink until after practice. hazing, water moccasins. i was going through the -- this camp was built in the mid-30s during the great depression, and it didn't close until the early '80s, there what one story that came out of '62, '63 -- this is the deep south. football is it. it's king. there's one story written by some local sports writer, and he is talking about the upcoming

season and albany high has great football teams, won state in 1959, a lot of excitement, and talk can about the camp, and he uses that phrase, made or broken. he said the coach will take the kids out to camp and they're either made or broken. so, i thought that was it. >> and what other books are you working on? >> well, i've written two previous books. one -- a bit about the first two. one is about a sharecropper, born in 1960 and became a millworker. that came out a year or so ago called "mill daddy. the life and times of roy davis." then i've written a book called "my mother's dream, baseball with the bankers" about a dream my mother had about watching my dad play baseball. my dad organized a baseball team in the '50s in indiana and this is a story about their friendship and love. it's more than a sports book.

i have begun working on a book about grady caldwell. because of what happened to him, grady fell into the pit of drug use and addiction, and i interviewed him in prison for this book. but then there are other themes that emerge in his life. redemption,. and his family stuck with him, and he is a minister in georgia, so i've just begun work on that book and going to interview grady this week. >> thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. >> book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction authors and book programming every weekend on saturday from 8:00 a.m. to monday morning at 8:00 eastern. to get the complete weekend schedule e-mailed to you every week, sign up for the book tv alert at book tv.org or text the word "book" to 99702. booktv, top nonfiction authors and books every weekend on