up next phyllis schlafly discusses the flip side of feminism. the co-authors argue while women have more power, freedom and education, they are less happy. they believe men have been miscast as optical for women and contend both sexes have been hurt by feminism. [applause] >> thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. yes i've had an interesting and fun of life and i don't know any of it to the feminists. i will tell you that. feminism has become a very hot topic. i suppose the reason for that is sarah palin, a feminist cannot resist attacking sarah palin. it's not just because she's a republican and conservative. it's because she is a successful woman. she has a cruel husband, a lot

of kids, great career, making lots of money. she is by any standard the success and they can't stand it and acid in their wounds is that she's pretty, too. [laughter] so, the feminists don't believe that women can be successful in the united states. they think women are oppressed by the patriarchy. they are held down by mean men and they need the government to rescue them and give them more advantages. and that's a very unfortunate. but you never hear them talk about really successful women, margaret thatcher, condoleezza rice, what about all the wonderful women who were elected last november 2nd, 2010? well, it turns out they were all republicans. in fact they were all pro-life, and that wasn't what the feminist plan that all. they simply do not recognize the fed. i think one of the reasons i was

able to be the people's rights amendment is because they did not believe i was doing what i did. they conjure up conspiracies like the insurance companies were financing me or some other nonsense like that. now who this ideology of telling young women that you are victims of an oppressive society is so unfortunate. if you wake up in the morning and believe that, you're probably not going to accomplish anything, whether you are a man or a woman. and many of the feminists in fact most of them think that abortion is the litmus test for being a feminist. but one of the feminists wrote in "the washington post" just a few weeks ago the definition of feminism is that we are under an impressive patriarchy and they've got to work to overturn it and stop it so that's what feminism is.

it is also not true that they are working for the quality. the feminists are for empowerment by the female left. you find that they are not importing all women. they want to make an alliance with a left wing and so it is the female left that has become so powerful when it aligns itself with the obama administration. when the feminist movement got under way, really in the late 60's, early 70's, they call themselves not feminism, they call themselves the women's liberation movement and has to ask what do they want to be liberated from? they want to be liberated from home, husband, family and children, and so you find they encourage them to be independent of men. that's why we believe to the big supporters of divorce and they

looked upon marriage as a confining life. gloria steinem said that when a woman gets married she becomes a semi non-person. betty friedan said that the life of a wife and mother was living in a comfortable concentration camp. that is their attitude. the social degradation of women was really a major goal of the feminist movement and it wasn't -- they were really not using the argument that it takes two incomes to support the family. that really wasn't why they wanted to get hurt of the home, not for economic reasons but for social and cultural reasons because they try to tell women who are just a parasite, and your life is not accomplishing anything, the only way to have fulfillment is to be independent , and have your own

career. it's kind of interesting when they have a divorce, while they are married and are all the time writing because the men aren't changing have the diapers and washing have the dishes and getting up past the time in the middle of the night to take care of the vv and they want him to do 50/50 but once they have a divorce they think only the maunder to become mother can handle it. they want sole custody and the father becomes a visitor in his child's life maybe twice a month. so, they've taught young women that you're only fulfillment is in the labour force i guess reporting to a boss instead of a husband and they thought was great. they wanted to treat any man as irrelevant, unnecessary, and they are also antimasculine which we see in what they have

accomplished with their agents in the department of education through tunnell ix. and they've been on an antiman campaign to get rid of men's sports and colleges and now they are working on the high school, and there is a cultural difference between the way men want sports and college and women. when i went to college i did everything to avoid any kind of sports, but the men who like it and they have gotten the colleges to cancel hundreds of man's sports but one that annoys me the most is they got into college is to ban 450 ruslan teams. you tell me what good that does for women, and it shows you that this campaign has nothing to do with equalizing the money that is spent on sports because wrestling is the cheapest sport you can have. all you need is a match, but that is one of the things they've done and they are proud

of it and they have this idea men and women are the same and its lead this patriarchy that speaking them down. now it is taught in the women's studies courses and maybe some of their sociology courses, too, that there really -- it's kind of funny when i started fighting the feminist movement, the ideology seem to be making two different kinds and the to get as their responsibility to correct his mistake or shall i say her mistake. [laughter] but now they seem to have shifted to the different theory that really got a got it right in the first place and that all these differences that we think that we see are in the social construct. they are built into by the stereotype of bringing by the terrible things they give their

girl babies dolls and boies trucks. a lot of what they are doing is based on this ridiculous idea that there isn't any difference physically, emotionally, culturally or sexually or any other way. between men and women. in fact, a lot of colleges you can't even get a great or major in the women's studies department unless you buy in to that philosophy. so, there are certainly lies that they taught really feminism is the fault of the century, but one of the law is is that there's no difference between men and women and that is simply not true. another line is that the hook up culture is liberated and they tell girls to be equal you have to engage in sex and be as promiscuous as men are engaged to be coming and that is a day and both for girls and i sure many of you know, and then they

tell the girls you've got to structure your life so that you have a courier and they're just isn't any space for marriage and babies come and a lot of the feminists have discovered after 40 that there was indeed a biological clock, which they deny, and some of them have written about it. one of their chief theorists, germaine greer, written about her effort to have babies after she was 40. she said i have a medical bill to prove it. another one whom you see sometimes on public television made a very bitter comment in her book about how she long for the baby she would never have and one of the feminists wrote a

book in which she thought she had made an amazing scientific discovery that women over 40 are less fertile than women under 40 and her book didn't sell very well, people didn't want to hear that but another one of the examples of the oppression of the patriarchy is the society expect smothers to look after the baby, and this burden has got to be lifted from women and that is why the taxpayers should be responsible for providing tax payers take care for all children, and this was a tremendous fight that we fought around 1988, '89, '90 to try to establish federally financed, federally regulated day care for all children, nothing to do with the need for it, but just as a

matter of course to list the suburban off of the women's backs and fortunately we did beat them on that. i noticed that bernard goldberg wrote in his book about the bias of cbs. he said the biggest story you will never see on cbs is what's wrong with daycare because the feminists in the network will not allow that on as a story on cbs and another myth that is created is that the feminist movement has created so many opportunities for women. yeah, if there are fewer opportunities to get a job in a coal mine if you really want to and jobs like that, but i remind people, i worked my way through college as a gunner working the night shift in an ammunition plant and got my degree in 1944 with absolutely no discrimination against me of any

shape or form. i got my master's at the harvard graduate school, absolutely no discrimination. i could compete with all the ways, that was 1945. my mother got her college degree from a great university in 1920. those opportunities were there for the ones who wanted to to get a vintage of them in those heroes. most of my friends prefer to get married and go on to have some babies but that is a matter of individual choice and they don't respect the individual choice to get in fact the big feminist movement taught in all of the women's studies courses, the french woman who wrote the single-sex said that you shouldn't give women the choice to be -- to have a career or be a full-time homemaker because if you give the choice, too many women will make the choice. and so they understood that they didn't want them to have the choice because they wanted to get all of the women in the

workforce. and whereas i guess i'm kind of known for defeating the equal rights amendment in the battle and what got me on to that part of that i was writing and selling books on politics and on the strategic balance, the soviet missile threat. but i got in because it was such a fraud. it pretended to give a benefit to women and put women in the constitution and they didn't do that at all. i testified in 41 states that does lead hearings and the only time the other side came and said we have a law in our state that discriminates against women was a state they said they had a lot we and why it couldn't make homemade wine with their husband consent. [laughter] for the sweetness of our constitution? [laughter] and then we said we put women in the constitution but men are not in the constitution.

the constitution is a beautiful document. it only talks about citizen and residents and we the people the presidents and senators and representatives women have a pre-constitutional right that men have and have had since the constitution was originally ratified. so, it was such a fraud with the era would have done is to make all of the laws sex neutral. the classic sex specifically was the draft registration law said male citizens of ag team must register. i had sons and daughters about that age, then and my daughters thought this was the craziest thing they ever heard. you're going to give women the constitutional amendment and the first thing is we have to sign up for the draft of our brothers? that wasn't available, we were in the vietnam war when the e.r.a. came out of congress. so the whole idea of feminism is

a fraud and it's even worse than a fraud because it is leading young women down a dead-end road and that's why i was so happy to have the collaboration of my niece, suzanne, who speaks to the issue from the younger generation and in a voice and words that i think the appeal to the younger people and they think i am an old fogy in fact i did some of these things written about the obsolete version of marriage that some people are clinging to but suzanne can give you the young people's viewpoint and i think we've provided a book that is the road map for a happy life for young women and also a warning to the guys about what you can't say now that we hope to open up to feminism so you will be able to talk more frankly about some of these issues. it's the flip side of feminism,

what conservative women know and men can't say and i hope you will enjoy the book. thank you very much for listening. [applause] >> hello. it is so great to see so many young ladies here. i have to tell you because you all are the group we are most trying to reach through the book because i truly believe it is your age group that is getting such a bad message today. it is often said that when something gets repeated often enough, people will ultimately accept it as truth. with no other subject is a psychological phenomenon more applicable than feminism. the modern generation has absorbed the myth of feminism like a sponge. they believe essentially what they have been taught to

believe. they think a feminist is someone whose strong and independent. they think feminism is what allows women to get college degrees and pursue careers outside of the home, and they also believe that feminism treed mothers from their cages, and we all have seen in hollywood movies that have depicted the 1950's mother who was so despondent after her last child goes off to kindergarten, she is alone in this kitchen and she doesn't know what to do with herself. and that is sort of the image we have about the 1950's mother. to give you some evidence that this is how the modern generation thinks, i thought i would read for you some comments that were made online in the last few weeks as a result of two publications, one in the huffingtonpost.com and one in boston university to a which is my all modern.

there were several articles, q&a out feminism and several thousand responses from some angry women who were clearly raised by [inaudible] [laughter] my mother raised me not to depend on anyone but myself and that is hard to do. but my happiness depends on that. if they had any sense they would think the feminist movement for making it possible for them to have college education for it not for feminist thank you suzanne's time, she never would have gone to college or have been able to be published author obviously it is a case for a woman to have a career as long as it involves putting women down and keeping them in their place at home barefoot and pregnant and submissive whenever a man is present. that is what i try to do on the flip side, they are right. >> women after all this time earned less money and lost jobs and are equally educated come

equally experienced male counterpart. we are penalized for having a womb, and my favorite one, feminism saved us from the horrors of the role of women were expected to play in the early half of the 20th century. anyone who denies that is just insane. so that should give you a flavor of the kind of knee-jerk response is that anyone who speaks out against feminism is going to get. that's why we say it's worse what a man says we're saying. that's worse, there would never fly but if a woman says she's a traitor to her sex, of course. feminism means different things to different people, but we prefer in the flood site to use the definition that phyllis mentioned from jessica valenti who is sort of the head honcho

of the third wave feminist movement, and she provided in the washington post a working definition for feminism. she said feminism as a structural analysis of the world that oppresses women. an ideology based on the notion that patriarchy exists and that it needs to end. this is what it means to think like a feminist. if you believe that, if that is your world view, you are a feminist. but being a feminist doesn't mean being strong and independent. in fact, just the opposite since transfers dependence on a man, on a husband to dependence on on all sam and feminism is and what allows women to get college degrees and pursue careers. we have men in technology to think for that. and that is a completely new concept for young women because

they've never heard that before and we explain what we mean by that and the flip side so have a summit is a bit of a sort of american culture? very easy. it's women on the left hold the power in this country. there is a chasm between everyday american women who are the right of center bunch and the women that you see in television, magazines, movies and academia. those women are left wing and so their message conflicts with the message most young women need and want. what are some of these myths? there is a bunch. i'm going to focus on three. the first is the wage gap. we probably -- i know why have so you have heard endlessly lately in the media actually about how women still don't make what men make throughout their lifetime. they're constantly harping on the gender gap.

there is a gender gap, a wage gap to use both freezes, there is a gap and always will be that there's a good reason for it. when women become mothers they choose to care for their children and that means they are going to be out of the workforce for a period of time. for some people that's five years, for some people it's ten, some people it's 20. maybe they never go back, but most take time out to care for those children. when they do return, most of them return on a part-time basis and often after the last child trot off to kindergarten. they also don't take the and dangerous job the men do. so you add those up and there is a very good reason why there is a wage gap, but that isn't what the message -- that is the message you get from the media. the media don't explain that. they just tell you when and despite the gains they've made still don't make what man make

making you think that women are discriminated against. another myth is the idea that and phyllis brought this up as well, casual sex is somehow liberating, the more sex you have or the freer that you are with your body is somehow meaning you allin your body and its importing and liberating for you. it's a horrendous message and we have a copious amount of research into the side that is politically incorrect that will tell you the truth about the horrible fallout of what we call the hookup culture. we also provide in the appendix excerpts from an excellent pamphlet but the dr. miriam grossman put together concerning this issue and then also phyllis mentioned the other mnf i was going to talk about which is

this idea the gender differences don't exist, but there is really no difference between male and female. in a recent interview gloria steinem was asked on her thoughts about the research on male and female brains which there has been a lot lately in the last few years which has been great and doctor luann wrote the female brain and the male brain and this is the last few years and is an excellent material to prove that yes, men and women are actually different which of course we know but now it is in print. the response to this? well, you know, every time there is a step forward there is a backlash so now we are seeing another backlash about the brain differences. even if they are right it doesn't have to continue to be so. what makes human beings the species that has survived all this time is our adaptability. when the interview press further asks aren't there inherent differences we cannot ignore? she replied society can

certainly intervene at a cultural level to change the behavior. fortunately, just this past january, two months ago dr. catherine from the london school of economics published a report that highlights a dozen feminists months some of which we've already mentioned that she provides and she says, quote come have no solid basis and social science theories that they are widely believed and constantly reiterated in the media. feminism is and what people think it is. it has nothing to do with equality for women and it has nothing to do with making women more independent, not at all. feminism is about power for the female left. it's an emotional issue. people feel strongly about feminism but those who are able

to detach from their emotion and read the flip side of feminism with a genuinely open-minded will see that what feminists want is no different from what president obama wants, to fundamentally transform america. thanks. [applause] >> we will be glad to take questions. there are microphones in the room we would ask you to wait for for reporting purposes, and if he would be so kind as to identify yourself and give an affiliation if he would like that would be appreciated, too. i couldn't help but think of during the litany of quotes the famous ronald reagan quote, our opponents are not necessarily content, they just know so many things that aren't true. [laughter] which takes a while to get around. we have any questions from the floor?

>> looking back at american history when women gained the right to vote, do you believe feminists viewed that differently than you do? >> is the microphone on? >> they claim credit for it and they don't deserve any credit for that. it is an entirely different movement to get women of a positive benefit. i'm certainly for women voting and being active in politics, but they claim they were there for mothers or something and there is no relation. those women were pro-family and in particular anti-abortion, and i don't know how the current feminist can trace lineage to

them, but i think that is all another myth. >> if i can just add to that, i think that that issue is what makes the whole conservative women's movement so confusing when it comes to feminism. that's what causes problems because conservative women want to hold on to that label because they do associated with the suffrage movement so one of the things we do in for the site is to sort of delineate and save really all of our discussions about feminism is from 1960 and on, and we explain why it shouldn't be connected with the suffrage movement, but it's that confusion people think if they took the legal you must think women shouldn't vote because the movement really goes all the way back to the 19th century. but in fact the movements just aren't related. and abroad since they might be, but in the real sense, they are not to read some can't believe how many times i to be a feminist and she's crying around about one of the injustice is

was women didn't have the right to vote. now i don't even know anybody who remembers that time. [laughter] move on, get with it. [laughter] >> another question. >> yes, at the back. >> i'm suspicious that it's only men asking questions. [laughter] panama to ask about women in the military, i've seen a couple articles recently women serving in the military have higher divorce rates than men who serve in another to come and lo and behold there are more single mothers serving in the military than there are single fathers, and a few weeks ago there was information that there's an effort underway to expand their role the women can take in the

military to let them be in all forms of combat roles except the ground infantry and it's been expanded over time. can you comment on what the feminist movement says and part of the reason for this, but presented for this is an order that women have more career opportunities to advance the higher ranks and i wonder if you could comment on them, the feminist movement and what it's meant for the role of women in the military. >> the feminists are complaining there aren't enough female genitals and high rank and you get high rank when you face the enemy. >> i think it's very wrong what's happening. i don't really have respect for men who said women not to do the fighting for them. women have an important place in

the military the women's jobs in world war ii, but as far as putting them in, i think it's ridiculous. they simply cannot do the physical work men can do. there's just no way they can and then they make them lie about it and say they are doing the same work and if the men don't lie about it and accept it that is a killer for them. i think it's wrong but the feminists are pushing that and all we have, the fight on the equal rights amendment in 1972, the documents, the platforms was a 100 page article written by who wrote in the yale law which journal and he said between brutalizing men and brutalizing women there is little to choose. women should be in every combat job and that is what they have

been moved for and the communists have never denied it. >> another question? >> the to write in the front. yes, down here in the front. >> i'm charlotte espinosa. now that this entirety is in place, what is the best way for people and young women especially to overcome it and how do you refrain from feeling like a victim in an attack? >> it's really difficult to stand up against. there is no question because it does seem as though everyone around you think is one way. i found or i did find that really the best way is to surround people like mine did that really helps a great deal. but have you ever spoken out and sat opposite of what they're telling you.

so you don't think women are victims. that's nothing to think about because if you just throw it out there and set the question back on them how they respond as to why they think that. they're passing on what someone else told them so i tell people to ask them the question and ask them why they think that, where did they get that? what's an example of that and then prove them wrong and getting them to see that they are wrong. >> i don't think it's difficult at all. i think that it's a lot of fun. they are so wrong. when did he said in the debate she would like to burn me at stake i thought are you trying to make me into the joan of arc? [laughter] they are so wrong and foolish and put out so much nonsense and i'm not going to let those slobs role in my day. [laughter]

>> she's extra thick skinned and -- >> i had learned though. >> that's true and my experience is the same of hers and ankle and it does get easier overtime for sure but you get to the point where the accusations are so outrageous -- i got an e-mail yesterday that -- not yesterday at last week that told me i'm worse than hitler. and it takes you back for a moment, it does, but then eventually, you realize who thinks like that? how can you -- do you really mean what you're saying? when you realize the kind of mentality that you are dealing with, the worst thing it does is tells you how many people there are like that out here and that's really awful. that's the worst part, but just the last few weeks alone the attacks on me specifically particularly because of the boston university article where i went to school and did an interview with me and my all modern which is just off the chart, crazy. and it's sad because it really

tells you when conservatives talk about the indoctrination on campus they aren't kidding. i mean, it's not a joke and it's not paranoia, it's real and all you have to do is go to the flip side of the feminism website click on the front page and read through the comments, and you will be -- >> down here in front. i will stay on this side for a minute. >> has there been any inroad in the message and you envision the in red for your message? >> if so where so the children can go to those schools? [laughter] >> it's just starting. so i'm very cautiously optimistic about where it's going to head. i know i'm going to be on the npr affiliate in response to

this. boston radio called and it's going to be aligned for sure. they are going to want to single me out as the enemy. so, i don't know, i know that certainly phyllis has been more involved in terms of college, the college environment because she is given a lot of speeches for me. i'm just sort of starting out on that iran guess why don't know what's going to happen. i'm concerned and that's why when i said when i see these young ladies faces and it's just so wonderful because again that's the group i'm trying to reach. >> i think the colleges have been effective in all of the department's but you want to take say engineering, but don't waste your education dollar on the women's studies. they are absolutely the worst, and it's just a lot of feminist lesbian propaganda.

>> and it goes back decades. my husband would get lower grades from these feminist professors and this is in the early 80's because he would argue with or take issue with what they were teaching him to provide an alternative viewpoint maybe it's not this way or maybe -- and he was penalized for that. the power is off the charts. it's just awful. >> one more down here. >> my name is let. i was wondering you would pay the to say to men as a result of the feminist generation and on both sides of the aisle it seems men have become weakened by the feminist movement even if they do agree with things that are advocated in your book -- >> right, exactly. my hope is that men will use

this opportunity to have the door open and say you know, i really think this isn't so great for either our marriage, become our family, the kids or what have you. it's going to be difficult because the women who will to resist. i know feminists don't want you to think they do, but they certainly do on the home front and all the research proves that that despite the power we search for outside the home there's tremendous power within the home if you are female, and so it's really about encouraging men to feel that they can argue it would take issue with some of those issues in the feminist movement and still -- and not be taken as a chauvinist, but of course if you have to be married to or surrounded by women who will encourage that and think that we as well, so that will depend on how much he speaks up the average person. >> the speaking out has to come

from women. the men just can't do it. sorry. >> a no-win situation. >> there's no question that it won't come out the mouse the same way that it would for women so hopefully there will be a part too. >> back there in the middle. >> could you comment a little bit more on what you think the effect have been on many and what they will be if the feminism movement isn't stopped? >> say that again. >> could you comment on what the effect of the feminism movement has been and what they will continue to do if the feminism movement isn't stopped? >> there was a fantastic in the last few weeks there was a piece in "the wall street journal" about the book manning out and said where have all the man don, i think that's the right title, and was a focus on how men are now stuck in this boundary and

the question is why. they didn't understand why this is, why are men not becoming an? and the answer is feminism. it's feminism that has not allowed them to be man and part of the man and growing up is getting married and having a job and so that environment since it's no longer there because women are shacking up with them because everyone's getting married later is they don't need the support of the family because everyone's is we don't need many ways we are going to do our own thing, it starts out like this and he's still down there because he needs somebody -- she needs a system to force him to grow up. that's just sort of a who is the man we talk about? we love george and we quote him several times on the flip side. >> the book is called minn and marriage. >> he has an excellent grass on the male and female nature and how they can work in tandem but what you need for women in order

for man to be a certain way, and now with feminism we are not promoting the that anymore, so now man are not growing up. it's very simple. >> i would add to that the domination that feminists have in the educational system, and it starts in the elementary grade which are mostly run by women and now largely feminists because of the power of the teachers' union, and your typical, not all, but typical elementary school teacher looks upon a unruly boys as just an ugly girls and it needs to be made to behave like girls and they need to sit still and do the work with a pen and pencil that girls can do very easily, and unfortunately a lot of new schools are being built without playgrounds and recess is being cancelled and a lot of schools. this is a direct attack on the boy is who've got to go out and

run around and beat each other up so they can come in and learn something. [laughter] and the feminists won't tolerate that because that is an insane idea that boys and girls are the same and i've already mentioned the whole problem with sports trying to take sports away so the colleges are now 60-40 female. the girls don't like it, but feminists have done it. >> we have a whole chapter in flip side called the emasculated -- the expandable mail, sorry. >> be expandable kneal and the whole chapter is about men and it starts from school boys and goes through the sort of stages of manhood and talks about citing what has happened with boys and men as a result of feminism. >> we have one more question on the far side.

>> i just wondered on the first question talking about the suffrage movement and how that contrasts with the more modern feminist movement. would you attribute when they throw you can only get a college education because of those things more to the suffrage like is that where that -- >> no, i think they honestly believe because they've been raised by the baby boomer mothers and culture that has taught them in no uncertain terms feminism is what gave the women the opportunity and that opportunity includes college degrees and careers and without feminism, the world you see today would not exist. that's what they believe and what we are proving an foot site is that there's a whole another reason why the world is the way it is now, and what had happened exactly the way that they did with or without this movement that is a great question.

>> i wrote my first book in 1964 before the feminist movement and sold 3 million copies out of my garage. [laughter] >> and so can you. [laughter] >> weigel we are having some enjoyment with this discussion, it is of course a very serious topic and we do recommend that you get a copy of the site of feminism just to see where we are on this agenda. we do want to think again our special guest for a wonderful presentation. [applause] >> to find out more, visit the book web site, theflipsideoffeminism.com. >> with federal judge's rejection of the 2008 google books orland, the future of a complete online library is in question. joining now to discuss this

issue is cerro linemen, the news editor of publishers marketplace. if you could begin by giving us a brief overview of what the settlement was and who are the parties involved? >> sure. the settlement of rose from an original lawsuit was filed by the association of american publishers and the author's field. the object to the fact that in their view duel was standing primarily out of print and those works whose copyright status was not entirely known and they felt that the scanning was infringement and they didn't like that so they sued. estimated to the courthouse over the party's all decided to create what is known as the googled look settlement and what that would entail is coming up with some means of getting copyright holders some monetary value for their work and what

they elected to do is create what is known as the process to opt out where it authors didn't want their work to be stand by google they could write it and opt out and those who did have their works to stand by google would get about $60 per work. estimated through the court, the judge heard about this 14 months ago and then he was confirmed to the second court of appeals after which nobody knew exactly what was going on with the settlement and when the news came in that he rejected it, that sort of created a wave of surprise among the parties and especially in the publishing community. >> what was the judge's rationale? >> he ultimately believed that the settlement wasn't fair, adequate or reasonable. he felt the numerous objections that were launched by that 6,800 authors as well as 500 other parties were substantial enough

to rule the way that the settlement was created contravened the current copyright law. and there was a way to do it so he thought the majority of the objections could be notified by the oft doubt process where copyright holders could say no, i want to be part of the settlement. instead of assuming unless you opt out that you're automatically in. he didn't like that and he felt that this was not a good way of doing it. the other portion that i addressed earlier related to orphan works and he felt that the google book settlement couldn't adequately address this and instead this was a matter that should be taken up by congress. >> so, sarah, during this entire legal process, google has been scanning books into its system. what happens to those books? >> this intrigued question, and in fact because the settlements

have now been rejected. no one really knows what the next movement will be. they're supposed to be a status meeting on april 25th at 4:30 at which time i guess the parties are going to be to the acoustic their claims as to why they should come up with a revised settlement that is what the achp are built on record as saying and google will have to figure out exactly what they want. there are multiple ways of looking at, some commentators say this actually hurts google because this puts the scanning in doubt. other commentators say no, this is in fact find because in another separate program which is the creation of the google e books, google is already scanning work sitter and the copyright with the various provisions. you can go to do all's ebook site online and download for price any current ebook that is available for sale.

you can even go to during is independent retailers affiliated with the e-book store and do it that way. they did it through the partner program where the publishers and authors attwell has opted in to make these books available for sale so there is some rationale that by implementing in instituting this particular program that this is perhaps the model for the google book settlement should be. the other put into limbo is the summit was supposed to create what is known as the google e-book right registry and the publishers have spent i think roughly between 12 to 50 million already in terms of getting this up and running. now that how can you have the rights registry for the settlement that technically doesn't entirely exist so it remains to be seen while the ap launch the lawsuit, will other parties to the gate? will do will want to continue the suit? i have a feeling we will know more when the meeting happens on a pro-life.

>> what was the reaction and the association of public reaction to the judge's suggestion that they use the autun system? >> both the aap and ag were disappointed the settlement was not approved. but both parties seek to express optimism the to find a way into the settlement like for example mcmillin ceo issued a statement on behalf of the aap and essentially said they're prepared, that is the publisher's point, to enter into a narrow settlement along the lines to get advantage of the groundbreaking of attendees and the hope the other parties will do as well and scott, who's currently the president of the ag, he says along the lines of, you know, regardless of what the outcome of the discussions are the what access to the available work and authors needed report the can get. there has to be a way to make some kind of settlement had been to make it available and they

hope they can affect your life the settlement. with respect to google, they were as a kind of disappointed, but he essentially said they hope to be able to continue scanning and make as many books available. so easily i think it's disappointing but cautious optimism seems to be reading the day. >> what about google competitors, and was on, microsoft, yahoo!, etc.. what was their reaction cracks >> to the best of my knowledge i think the reactions were mostly launched with the court documents. from what understand, they were certainly pleased that the settlement was not approved because each of the parties or certainly the majority did launch objections with the court. and as on for example said if you give google this advantage, how is this good for the

copyright? and that was actually another big issue of the judge which is that if -- is a good idea to have a digital library, to have these works stand but should google be the arbiter and the decision maker, the entity that decides what is scanned, which books are essentially made available, and i think in the judge's opinion he felt very uncomfortable at one entity, one corporation could have that much power and the unfair advantage over the corporate entity or the public entity. >> sarah recently in "the new york times" robert, the director of the harvard university library wrote that the decision is a victory for the public good but insisted, quote, we should not abandon google's dream of making all the books in the world available to everyone. instead, we should build a digital public library which would provide these digital copies free of charge to the readers.

is there any by ability to that? has anyone stepped up? >> it sounds like a wonderful idea. yes, the only entity that stepped up is google and unfortunately it is especially with the current economic state of play the priority for the digital public library that wasn't already in progress i suspect is not the highest of priority. i mean, already look at the money that has just been sent on the right to the registry alone which we have to be abandoned in the worst-case scenario. or in the best case scenario taken up but then who would be taken up by that? as a result, with the tremendous market cap that they have are really one of the only corporations were the only entities, public or private that has the clout and the muscle to be able to make this happen. so i think ultimately that was why the settlement was a good idea for the aap and spurring ag because they recognize there is value in the work they did and they wanted to at least get something off the ground and

that could be built on and build on. will the library system be able to come together for a nonprofit entity when they are facing such massive cutbacks as the federal level? i am not entirely certain, so even though there is disappointment and cautious optimism about reviving the settlement there is also understandable skepticism that this could happen, so some people are looking at it as a win-win. i'm looking at it as more of a neutral potentially great loss if something doesn't move forward. >> will the judge continue to have a role in this issue? >> from what i understand he will not especially now that he has moved on to the second circuit court of appeals. this is one of the last outstanding cases on the dhaka. the 14 months that it took seemed publishing circles a

little long, the but in light of the complexities of the issues raised it makes sense in hindsight, so then the issue becomes who will take this up and would have to be litigated from scratch, will it be heard again, are there other cases that may factor into how what kind of potential outcome is reached at a later date will the strife on for years? we just don't know at this point. i think as i said a lot of things will become clear at the staff meeting on april 25th. >> we look forward to talking to you after that status meeting. finally, sarah liesman, do you see congress playing a role? >> it's a very, very good question, peter. certainly the judge hopes the congress will play a role. i'm not entirely certain that they will play a role since from a priority standpoint looking at it in the greater context of the budget cuts and health care and

various military activities going on whether the issue of having a digital library is going to even register on the current congress -- they also i think traditionally haven't necessarily been the most willing listeners in terms of trying to change the current copyright law we to make it more accessible to everybody, so i think it remains to be seen what congress in fact will do. >> sarah weinman with publishers marketplace. we will talk to her after the hearing. thank you. >> thank you so much for having me. >> we are here at the national press club books and author my talking with a veteran newsman jack fuller about his book what is happening to the news. tell us what is happening to the news.

>> what's happening to the news is the audience is changing fundamentally and that is as much as anything else reshaping the way the we are getting our news. >> in what way? >> well, there are obvious ways, the attention span is shortened, but there are deeper ways, too not the least of which is that the information environment we live in today actually because of the way that our brains are designed and built causes us to be much more drawn to emotional presentations of information than we were in quieter times and that is manifested is often the way that people are trying to communicate with us with a lot more intensity and often anchor and passion and so forth

than 15 years ago or 20 years ago and would have thought was appropriate. >> what are some of the examples of this phenomenon that you have in the book? >> the commentators on the cable news, for example as one example. it's probably the most prominent example, but you could even see it in the rhetoric of the written news particularly commentary, which is extremely intense. certainly you see it in the internet world and the kind of things that attract attention and an audience in the internet world are often not sort of neutral disinterested reports of this or that, but in fact the rant about something. why is that? why our intelligence people being drawn to that information?

that's what i actually try to answer in the book. >> what do you see as the ultimate outcome for the news industry of the current attention span that the audience has? >> i think for young journalists it's a little bit scary, but an exhilarating time. and the reason is it's not enough for them to just do a little better than the masters of the craft of the generation proceeding. they have to completely redo the craft. it's exciting. it's also scary because nobody has templates for how it is to be done. but i actually have confidence that as journalists begin to really understand what's happening out there in the audience they are trying to speak