argues that over the past 60 years hollywood executives, producers writers and actors have used the television airwaves to promote their liberal views. this is about 50 minutes. [applause] >> well, first of all, thanks so much to the heritage foundation for hosting me. it really is an honor and a pleasure. i do consider heritage to be the foremost organization leading the fight for restoration of constitutional values in america. and it's a privilege to speak about my book here. but let me begin by asking you a question. what's more powerful in shaping our views, narrative or argument? here's an argument against abortion. this is an argument. by the end of the first trimester fetuses have brain waves. they have five fingers on each hand. they have a stomach and functioning kidneys they have an operational hearts and fingerprints and yet each year 1.6 million abortions are performed and 91% of those, 1 million 456,000 abortions are performed in the first trimester. ..

the narrative matters. conservatives unfortunately have abandoned the narrative as an emotional toll - whistle to the trap of thinking intellectual argument tends to trumpet emotion you sure on talk radio all the time. we have all the facts on our side. but they don't rely on emotional the time because it works. we need to start taking that fight back. that's the power as narrative by the way was from the movie juneau for those of you who recognize it. hollywood which is the chief foremost political tool is totally run by liberals at this point liberals to discriminate

against conservatives, scorn traditional american values and use television in particular as the toll of propaganda in order to achieve their political end. the use the narrative to push their point of view we and they are clever about it and recognize if the slide their messaging and it's much more effective for to convince us to accept a new lifestyle choices and politics and the policies. now hollywood didn't used to be

this week. in the 1950's and even the 1960's hollywood executives were by and large conservatives. the creators were always liberal. they tended to be jewish socialists from new york. they were liberal in orientation. the battle between the two groups resulted in a relatively non-partisan kind of television. there were always liberalism that shone through of the creator can get away with it on occasion but for the most part, it was sort of down the middle with the death of kennedy hollywood's liberal creators become strident. there was a key shift in liberal thinking in america when kennedy died be shifted from the hopeful liberalism the future was going to be great entering the new frontier to a very pessimistic liberalism america is a bad place and must be fundamentally changed the same time and television the executives themselves were beginning to become liberal, they were being replaced by a new breed of advertising agencies executives who sprung from new york they were young, urban, hip and

liberal, and so everybody was now pulling in the same political direction. they did have one problem in terms of liberalism on television the audience was by and large conservative. in 1965 this was a conservative country. so television was faced with a dilemma. how can the program left when the country was right? the came up with a scam of this is what hollywood is fantastic at. a dirty little secret about tv the creators don't give a damn about you they couldn't care less about you. they are not interested in you there interested in the advertisers. the advertisers are where they get their cash when you click on tv no matter what you're watching they don't pay for it except for satellite tv fees'. the advertisers are. the only reason audiences are important in the market is the advertisers use those numbers to push to determine how many are seeing their message. but he tells the advertisers how many are watching the show this is how much you should pay for

those eyeballs. but that's not all that tv creators and executive stu. they say that certain elements of the tv audience are more important than other elements in the tv audience not all are equal. this is why you hear about the 18 to 34 or 49 crowd you look at the nielsen ratings and here's the key rating 1849. now if you think about that half a second it makes no sense. why should people 18 to 49 be targeted advertisers quote? deer living in mom and dad's basement smoking dope and being unemployed. i'm in that age group, okay? the fact is people who are 50 and above are the only people in the country right now who have savings, a disposable income and this is an aging country. it's a baby boomer country which means that the leading network in terms of revenue cbs. not anybody under the age of 40 have you ever watched the cbs

show? one? nobody watches under the age of 40 yet this is one of the highest rated shows on television because everybody over the age of 50 watches the shows and cbs rakes in the dough but they said the tv executives scan the advertisers to believe none of those people truly matters of a flight to the advertisers. why do they lie to the advertiser? originally abc, cbs, nbc in the late 1960's adc pacelli it's a major urban areas getting box handed to them by cbs which has affiliate's everywhere it was having all the talk shows the beverly hillbillies, green acres not exactly liberal urban shows. what happened is abc secured okay we've got to make money how are we going to do this? scan the advertisers and tell them our viewers are more important than theirs and because there's little critters and executives and ad agency people they said that sounds

great. the most liberal age group in the country. 18 to 34 come 18 to 49 and that's why they didn't allow the program liberal and that's why they lie and say the market demands are liberalism this is what shuts down conservatives, this is everybody's critiqued has said yes tv is liberal and then a case of the tv is liberal. you don't like it, turn the channel. only one problem there's nothing to turn the channel to the same people control channels and number two, they are not really marketing to you. they don't care about you even if we did turn the channel for the most part conservatives tend to be older, they tend not to live in urban areas and therefore, they are not the viewers that they are looking for. the result is there are no ramifications whatsoever for hollywood steepening liberalism. it comes through shorty on virtually every program you watch day in and day out, night in and night out. it's been put out what is different but the propaganda is i didn't just want to write

about the history. i interviewed all the people who made tv. i decided to get the story from the horse's mouth. the fact but liberals, the question i'm asked is how could i get these tapes? i'm not exactly a closet conservative. i've been openly conservatives in 16-years-old and nationally syndicated column on politics since 17-years-old. there is ten years worth of records out there about my politics. the beautiful fact about liberals have river is the stereotype on a regular basis especially on the basis of race and ethnicity. so it was no surprise they figured i was a liberal when i yield them. my last name is shapiro and i went to harvard law school at least 98.6% shot i'm a liberal. [laughter] i told them by the way that i was writing a book about the history of television profiling the biggest names and i was looking at the changes in social messaging from six in the city's witold them with the book was about i think they stopped listening at profiling the biggest names in tv. ego kills. all these people wanted to be interviewed because they thought

we are the biggest names in tv. as a reminder of my credentials i wore my harvard law baseball cap for the interviews i did to i do that on a regular basis as you can see i cover my head. i have to cover my head for religious reasons but it serves a purpose their none of them googled me. what i found was stunning. the hollywood community that's not only products liberalism but believes deeply what it's doing is right. they are discriminatory and happy to use their power to proselytize liberalism. the work hand in glove with the d.c. to keep pushing liberalism that happens to subsidies and back scratching and i will talk about that in a second and they twist the market as i explained to achieve their own end. i agree to play that audience so you can hear from the people we are talking about. let's start with leonard goldberg who happens to be a political independent producer of blue bloods on cbs and of charlie's angels. he is a member of the board of cbs and was aaron spelling's old partner who made probably have the major tv shows in the 1980's

and 1970's. he was a partner. goldberg's sums it up with regard to hollywood politics. let's see if we can play that now. >> one of the criticisms you hear a lot from cultural there's too much sexual content. there's one side of the agenda being pushed on most shows. >> there's no question about that. i don't know what the content being pushed but in terms of the fault about various matters social and political, it's 100% dominant and anyone who denies it is kidding or is not telling the truth. i can say that as an independent there's no question with the

agenda is. but if you say here, let's do a show about this, everyone is on one side. >> do you think that there's a barrier to the entry for people of different viewpoints and hollywood? >> absolutely. [inaudible] brilliant actor. brilliant. he felt very strongly his opportunities for limited because his outspoken feeling about his views. >> so the question is why is hollywood so liberal? the answer is obvious for the most part they despise conservatives. they live in an eco chamber. hollywood is like liberal academia. it's so we stirred that everyone feels they are expecting fact

is, not opinion. everything they say is true and if you disagree it's because you are factually incorrect. take for example susan harris the creator of a couple of the famous shows of all time soap and golden girls. here's what she had to say about conservatives across america. let's see if we can play that. >> these are the campbell's. >> mother, how would you like a daughter? >> jolie, just tell me? >> i and thinking of having a sex change operation. ♪ thank you for being a friend ♪ traveled down the road and back again ♪ [laughter] >> calmed down, ladies. did you just get out of prison? [laughter]

what's your response to the criticism of people in these kind of groups when they say television is too liberal, progressive, and -- >> idiots talking. i mean what can i say. look there's a large section of this country it seems getting a little bit smarter there are a lot of people who really have medieval lines in all sorts of ways that aren't open to anything new, aren't open to anything reasonable saying science is a matter of belief and that's who you're dealing with. >> she is an absolute delight. [laughter] she actually goes on there and

says she couldn't write for that audience then she says this is an audience i could never speak to. the was exactly the audience she was speaking to. those were the people watching her show so there's a giant disconnect between the creators of television and the people who watch television that say imperialism is the worst in the universe and the close. sometimes because they think they are reflecting real-life america and they are reforming it. she said she thought tv lagged behind cultural shift another concussion it forward even though she was behind so which is one of the first to promote gay rights. the first this tv reflects the lives of people in hollywood and transforms it reveals even when liberals aren't trying to do that they reflect the sea in their daily lives. sometimes however it is active.

nicholas meyer is the director of star trek two and six and star trek for and the director of one of the most successful tv movies of all time, the day after. it was a movie about what would happen in the aftermath of nuclear war at the time of some of the highest-rated tv movies in the history of the media. the movie premiered in the 1984 election cycle here's what mick had to say about what he meant to do the day after fox. let's see if we can play that. [applause] ♪

[background noise] >> my private grandiose notions was that this movie would unseat ronald reagan. >> well, so much for that. they used to particular goals and that doesn't stop them from trying. the creator of friends we were going to play this but there was cursing. the creator of friends for example told me one of her favorite episodes, the lesbian episode in the first season. that episode she said the cat can grist for gingrich as the pastor of the wedding. she said that she was cast as a quote on quote fu to the right

to read the feel of the of the need to slap us across the face guilt from rich people and socialists so they have to live with themselves. the way they do that is by looking across america and say okay you're a bunch of capitalists i know i'm making money off of you but at least i'm going to smack you across the face and remind you how evil you are that's why we see so much shock on you. they don't feel good about themselves unless they just socked somebody in the nose to read the response is if we don't like it we can turn the channel. a couple problems with that. first what we do with channel two? it's wildly integrated. six companies control everything you see on tv. the same group control the entire industry. second, a mess around with the advertising industry. third, subsidized and sponsored by the federal government. the relationship with the government goes all the way back to retek for civil the smothers brothers for those of you wonder the age of 50 you're not going to remember the smothers brothers but it reveals is going

to remember because was highly controversial and got tremendous ratings to read it got canceled i think in the third season. why did it canceled even if it had tremendous ratings? let's let mike and who is one of the vp at cbs explain why the show got canceled. [applause] >> we would like to combine our voices as we did once long ago and it's titled [inaudible] >> what? [inaudible] [laughter] [inaudible] >> can you tell that interesting story? >> it's free interesting because

it has frank stanton the president of cbs household sunday evenings and frank on more than one occasion set to meet you know, you're pushing the entire vietnam thing too much, and it's embarrassing to cbs and to me. because i knew he was close to ladybird. and it was his pressure to take them off. >> it's a lot deeper today actually. my favorite example springs from where else, the obama administration. do you remember the henry louis gates press conference the cambridge police acted stupidly? you remember the lead up to the press conference? none of the networks wanted to have obama on to read a gave kickbacks he wanted to be on a network tv and they said we will lose a lot of money. his networks dropping like a stone ever since he was elected because his proper lardy was dropping so quintessentially so

were his rating. he went to the head of the network directly to the corporate owners. he got them to greenlight the program. the jet set ge and west at cbs rather than the program heads. all three financial backers of the obama administration even name the was export council about a year earlier, and of course, the head of one of the chief beneficiaries of obama's largesse g. and moonves is the same fellow who traveled to cuba to hang out with fidel castro. in the case here's the dirty part the mid-court accepted the order from obama. coincidently two weeks later "the new york times" runs a story about the pharmaceutical industry buying into obamacare. they bought in because obama promised to cap the liability to 80 billion over ten years. buried in that article was as fascinating tidbit. to seal the new deal the pharmaceutical companies had to chip in just did a lot of money, 150 million to pay for television advertising in favor

of obamacare. by comparison the obama administration during the 2008 election cycle spent $236 million on the television commercials. see how that works the industry gets what it once and television advertising, everybody goes home happy except the tax payers whose air waves are being used for backdoor propaganda efforts. now you would imagine the big stop would-be executives come in using the executives was stopped the liberalism from going forward. we decided there are lines on big government and focus on the fact these people are corporate officers. suppose to be focused on urning revenue for the shareholders, correct? only one problem. the executives want to make a difference. so just listen to doug, the current head of mtv network which is the parent company of mtv and comedy central. curious bug on his last role as the chief executives at mtv networks.

>> a lot of people on the right criticize mtv and say it has a bad effect on children and targets teenagers and it's them into drugs and sex and that kind of stuff. how do you balance the need to be socially responsible and create social programming? >> [inaudible] you're talking to young people and we've got to have superpowers and use those powers for good or evil and the wrong end supported by a group of people who believe in rock-and-roll and entertainment and entertaining people having

fun at the same time to be a think they believe that through the medium of television they entertain and try, you know, to make salicylate the better place. >> what kind of message is particularly [inaudible] [inaudible] >> the executives feel the necessity to do something for the world and i love how he says superpower if those falling to the right hands it could be disastrous and he says they are doing good with mtv and comedy

central. how many people think mtv and comedy central are doing something good for the cultural debate? it isn't just about money to these people what about using their tremendous reach and power to the liberal message and what's worse than that is the use their power to keep conservatives from working in the industry. this is the more stunning emission i came across some propaganda when i spoke to people. the discriminate against conservatives and have no problem with it. it's the only area of people who were, mccarthyism, these are the people against blacklists. here's what they have to say when it comes to discriminating against people they disagree with politically and then the creature of america's funniest home videos here's what he told me when i asked him exactly that question. >> one of the critiques from the cultural right is hollywood is a

leftist town and tends to be liberal and only one perspective tends to get told in a scripted shows to read what do you make of that critique? >> i think it's probably [inaudible] the accusation is there. >> isn't that kind of a atrocious? when i called the dean of television writers who did all of the family, the jeffersons, virtually every major show of the 1970's is the founder of people for the american way and considers himself of his first amendment warriors had. i asked him to stand up for such discrimination he hasn't returned my call twice. it's worse than that. he refused the hollywood reporter variety. the secret of the caucus for

producers writers and directors, and non-partisan group dedicated to buy first fought in hollywood. the guy you heard speaking how he approves of discrimination is a high-ranking member of the caucus. we are the co-founder of the caucus. two major hollywood conservatives, won the oscar oscar-nominated writer and emmy nominee come and norman powell the former entertainment television head resigned from the caucus in protest over the comments. not only has he not said anything, the caucus itself refused to pass an anti-discrimination resolution claiming amazingly enough that they are a nonpartisan organization therefore cannot come out against discrimination. [laughter] the year against partisanship, they can't stand up against discrimination based on partisanship. but that's how it works on hollywood to it i wouldn't believe it if i hadn't felt it myself. when i started the book i believed discrimination in hollywood was a mess.

i mentioned leonard goldberg. when i interviewed him we got along famously pps if i would write a pilot on my experience and hollywood you would say yes because there's a lot of money involved. that's what i did. we went into development and i got an agent. everything was going to it i had a terrific meeting with an agent at the best in ten years until three weeks later got a call from him. he said one of my agents googled you and found your web site and at that point my stomach goes through the four pieces i'm not sure we can represent you because he thinks your political views will make it impossible for you to get a job in this town. one of the producers in town had seen my work and told the agent that he knew who i was and he would never work with me. that's how it works in hollywood. scores, hundreds of conservatives in hollywood will not come out for fear of losing their career and they are right because they would lose their career. the biggest names in the industry i won't mention here because it would damage their careers. what can we as motivated conservative stu? we need to take the blinders and

recognize tv isn't going anywhere. we are going to watch it and love it because we love narrative. if we want to take that the culture we need to stop worrying so much about politics and start worrying more about how we are going to take back the art of storytelling. ronald reagan knew the value of storytelling and that is why his these speeches or public. of restoring telling doesn't need to be restricted to the political sphere. we need to make art and excellent art. that is not conservatism with an artistic bent it is our first and conservative afterwards. there's a difference. people ask to we need a fox news of entertainment i say no we need a cbs entertainment has conservative values. we don't want to entertain for politics we watch it in spite of politics, entertainment to be entertained. as conservatives we put our money where our mouths are and start contributing to the new hollywood. we need to give advertisers an alternative place.

they have to go back to where the eyeballs are unless we give a different place to put their money they will keep putting it where we don't want them to put it. that's why for example i joined with a 501 thank to raise money for great entertainer that promotes traditional and conservative values. my friend who is closely associated is on the border right now filming a movie a cross between a controlled many at high noon that deals with the illegal immigration crisis. we need more people like jeremy and you guys moving out from d.c. to take back the culture. it's a lot of fun. you can do this and we can do this together but we have to recognize the power of storytelling. there's a reason when we uncover the prehistoric tero is a telling story as human beings we are obsessed with each other and obsessed with stories that's why god speaks in stories in the hebrew bible and uses parable's read abraham lincoln was raised on texts, the bible and shakespeare.

we've lost the art. we need it back. we need to learn from the left to fight them the and we can fight the battle. we need your help, your money and time and talent to read come to hollywood and make it open. we have to end the prime time propaganda. thank you free much. [applause] >> we will be glad to take questions. i have two thoughts. number when you give me a reason to actually like lady bird johnson. then i can't imagine recasting cbs conservative broadcasting service by ensure there are a few around here that would like to do that. we will take questions. we have a microphone if you but identify yourself let's start over here and then takes the rest of them. >> you said that people who watch these shows that are highly rated r either

middle-of-the-road or conservative. why are they watching and doing good things for the advertisers if they are being offended every step of the way? there's a disconnect between what you said and the reality of the advertising which is you need to actually please people, don't you? .. as much as we can but it's too tough to ask conservatives to turn off the tv and we're not going to do that.

we need to get over the concept -- the fire and brimstone turn off your television or the country will go in a hell and a hand basket. we like tv and then we go ohm and turn off tv and go home and watch friends. it's a reality and that's why i ask friends to get active. >> another question? >> hi, i'm general mcknight. i was head of the signal corps my first four years and we made a lot of films particularly in world war ii. the training films and so forth. >> why we fight. >> oh, yeah. why we fight and we also had vd films and why you don't go out and -- [laughter] >> get the wrong kind of lady in trouble. [laughter] >> but my question is, how do you use the patriotism in the

military in something that existed in hollywood back when reagan and some of the other john wayne, all those old characters were very conservative. >> yeah, jimmy stewart. >> that's right, jimmy stewart was a bomber pilot. how do you take -- and i've worked with literally thousands of soldiers. i had 30,000 people in one of my commands. they are patriotic. they want to be down the middle. they want to be part of the band of brothers. how do you take the military today only today 1% of our population and use them correctly without using them as a sop which is being done by an awful lot of the liberals today? >> well, i mean, i think first of all it would take a game changes shift in the mentality of hollywood to do that. the last cause they mobilized for in force the same way they did for world war ii was for the obama campaign.

that's how liberal they are. and i think that the military itself by the way has moved away from the -- has moved away from the idea of using film as a medium. it used to be that the military itself would be involved in doing this stuff. and now the military is not involved at all. now, the military doesn't want any part of it because the military is afraid because the media will call them propaganda efforts. we need more military people going to holiday and get involved. they have one vulnerability. this has shifted in the 1960s and '70s these were people who were spitting on the soldiers coming back and now they're not portraying them in the soldiers they are victims of the big bad bureaucracy that's sending them out there to die. but if you walk into hollywood in a military uniform they're afraid of discriminating against people in the military uniforms and i think that's a wedge we can use. we need to get more people who have ex-military service to get involved in the industry. i think we need to take it over

from the inside from that perspective. >> ben, thank you for coming. bill gl bill glacken i wonder if you talk about the education and the curricula in the education field? [laughter] >> it's the same as the rest of liberal academia only worse. the people who occupy kind of the screen writing positions are very obvious in their politics and who they want to promote. it was interesting. marty kaplan who's a professor at usc by the way this gives an idea. usc's film program, film and tv program is a norman lear film and tv program and that tells you where they are politically. marty kaplan he and i see eye-to-eye the advertisers to be bamboozled and i want him to look at the oh, i'll get to it.

we need to infiltrate the campuses. we need to take them over. the left has taken over institutions. we've been focused on, look, we're conservatives we focus on individuals. and their left they focused on institutions. we ceded the news media, the entertainment institution the liberal academia we ceded and then we're surprised when he churning on you liberals every day. we need to take over liberal institutions the way the left does. >> this is more of a philosophical question do you think there is a distinction between propaganda and providing a narrative on social commentary or are they more of the same. what are your feelings on that? >> my feelings on that is that it's a book title. [laughter] >> and you're right. there is a slight distinction and there's a fine line between providing social commentary that

in advertently pushes social messages and using it a propaganda messages and they use it consciouslessly and unconsciously. the same is on the viewer when we watch it, as i said they're creating a -- let's put it that way the gay rights movement would not be any near possible without the television industry actively promoting. i saw a poll the other day that saw a huge number of americans saw that 25% of americans are gay. now, the real statistic is 2 to five %, right and even that is high end there's only one area in american life where 25% of the population is gay and that's on american television, right? so they actually -- people tend to take what they see on tv without granted without ellen without will and grace i really doubt where we are in this debate so it is an active propaganda medium and it's a passive social messaging medium is probably the best way to put it. >> hi. my name is della healy and i was with abc when soap came out. >> it's your fault. pardon? >> it's your fault.

>> my fault. it's fred's fault. >> fred pierce? >> no, silverman. >> silverman. >> they were so nervous about it going out that they fed the pilots to the o & o's all before. >> yep. >> before they went out because they were so scared that it wouldn't be accepted. >> by the way, it wasn't accepted. it was widely boycotted. >> it was. >> and it was so boycotted that it lost money every single season. and abc kept it on the air anyway. >> yeah. >> and then we caved. >> yep. >> we caved. now, this is my question, you've already named one or i think two organizations that have within them conservative be they screen writers or whatever they are, and why is it -- and i know of a -- i've heard of a couple of others. why is it that they can't all come together and say, look,

we're going to have an out of the closet tsunami here, you know? and let's do it. and get ahold of it instead of just height and not being brave like john snyder and a few others. >> it's interesting we need talk about this. when the book came out -- at my book launch party that was put up by andrew breitbart. we had a bunch of hollywood conservatives who are present there. and one of the people said, let's do this. let's have an out of the closet tsunami and show everybody that we're here. we're here, we're conservative and we're proud. [laughter] >> and people -- people said and i think rightfully so that they're afraid of losing their jobs. the problem is the conservative movement has not provided the infrastructure yet to where there's no risk to it. right? if there was a conservative movie business or people out there who were really funding the conservative film and movie business then there would be a lot less fear and i think -- it's unfortunate reality. but even people who are big

names in the industry, i'm talking like patricia heaton she's probably the biggest conservative star in the industry right now. patricia is star of the middle. she's the wife on everybody loves raymond when i interviewed her owner for the book and i don't feel bad in the past weeks she say she was discriminated her in the hollywood she doesn't appear in the book. when i interviewed her for the book, i asked her, is there discrimination in hollywood against conservatives. she said i never felt it. two days later she comes up ben i started asking around i found out i lost six specific jobs due to my political affiliation and i said well, i write back and she said please take me out of the book i don't want to lose work. that's unfortunately how it tends to work in hollywood. so let's put at this way would it be great if there were that out of the closet tsunami but there would be a lot of people who would lose their works, jobs social business and they wouldn't get invited to the good businesses anymore and, unfortunately, that's how business is done. we need to show them a haven. they feel they are out there alone and to a certain extent they are because conservatives are watching liberal tv. so until we build that support

structure they're going to stay in the closet it's really that simple, unfortunately. >> another question? down here in front. >> you mentioned briefly declaration entertainment. i was wondering if you could talk a little bit about this and what do you think his chance of success is? >> well, declaration was started as an llc before i got involved we were converting it over to a 510c3. i think after this book it's been getting a lot of press and making a big difference in town and causing resignations and all that sort of stuff. i think my whole goals here is to heighten awareness. i think we'll have a good shot of raising some money and starting to train people and bring people into the industry and providing -- providing money for them. i think it's going to take some people with very deep pocket books to really get involved

here. it doesn't take a lot of money to produce a film. what are you saying? i'm going to sign a $50 million check to make one movie, no. you can make a really good movie for 100 grand. the means of production have become so cheap it doesn't take a whole lot of money to make something good but it has to be good. it has to be a good script. it can't be american carroll. it has to be -- it has to be something that is entertaining first and that is well directed -- look, christopher nolan's first movie was done on a budget with $5,000. it's called following. it's an hour 20 minutes. you should get on netflix. talent is talent regardless of how much money you put in. it's not going to take that much money. all it will take is from active support from the outside monetarily and vocally we need to make clear to the entertainment industry we're not going to stand for this anymore and if they don't start catering to our needs that we will shift our money somewhere else. >> my name is robert smart. i actually work for a federal science agency which is almost like a mini hollywood.

i work with all ph.d.s internationally and actually take leave and come here on my breaks because it's a breath of fresh air and also how to keep my sanity. i was just -- and i also -- i write on the side. i've written for american thinker and -- >> i've read your stuff. >> i'm just -- how has the popularity -- your book's rather thick so i'm sure there's more processor in there how you deal how is the popularity of unscripted television. with the rise of reality tv, how did that change the narrative or the control over the narrative from scripted and how did it cause any ripples of concern? >> they prefer to see it in nonpolitical terms and production cost terms. my name actually makes reality tv shows. she does hell's kitchen. and >> one of my favorite shows. >> well, she appreciates it. the truth is that reality tv they tend to blame the success of reality tv well, it's low production costs we don't have

to pay the writers guild and we don't have to pay a lot of residuals but i think the popularity of reality tv is almost a direct response of scripted tv. i think more and more conservatives are interested watching the a-in prentice or "american idol" as i mentioned before which is a baseline conservative value to it at least you know when you watch "american idol" that for the most part nobody is going to smack you across the face with a brick. you know they are not going to get sucker pushed for the watch although obama will stick his nose in whenever there's an audience. reality tv is the new wave. i think the internet is really the answer. i think the internet will kill a lot of this because we actually have the means of distribution. again it's still going to cost money. people -- it's so funny on the internet people tend to think that you can make something that looks like fox news without spending the money that fox news spends in order to look like fox news. it cost the same amount of money regardless of the distribution platform. but if we spend the money we can use the internet as a distribution platform. netflix is eating everybody's lunch, right?

and there's a reason because it's on demand and you don't have to watch the commercials and i think that's -- that model is going to start becoming more and more prevalent. as the internet takes over by the way people in hollywood know this and they're scared. as the internet takes over there's going to be a ground shift or at least an opportunity for a ground shift in the politics of hollywood and i think we need to take advantage of that right now at the early inception point or they will take that over like all the others. >> one final question. >> al millikin, what more can you say about the transformation of david mammit and if he may do anything on television in the future? >> david's transformation has been very cool to watch from the outside. i helped plan a party for him a week and a half ago. it's incredible. it's good to see it happen. i would like to see him stand up along with the rest of us against discrimination in the business because i'm sure now

he's done this he's going to lose a lot of friends. i would prefer to see him talk a little bit more about hollywood and a little bit less about conservative ideals in general simply because i think he's new to the game, which -- in my opinion, i'm not very much of the dick morris school of thought you're new to the game and you get to preach to the rest of us. honestly, i've been here for 10 years and i've been here longer than that. i'm only 27 years old. if you're newly converted i don't think you ought to be up on the soap box but for david him to be doing that is a brave and courageous thing and i think i would love to see david mammit get involved with the campaign to really end discrimination in hollywood because it used to be a first amendment town it can be a first amendment town again. look, he has weight in the industry. that's why his book is doing so well. he has weight and people know he has weight. if he leveraged that weight to actually change hollywood could you imagine the effect? it would be phenomenal. we need more heavy weight conservatives, patricia heaton,

kelsey grammer. they are out there i named every conservative in hollywood but they need to start leveraging their weight and power to really start making a difference, i think. >> thank you, ben. >> thank you so much. [applause] >> this weekend learn more about the literary scene of savannah georgia, one of eight southeast cities we're touring this year for booktv. next an interview with hugh golson answer of andrew low and the sign of the buck. >> andrew low was one of the savannah's more prominent citizens. he was a merchant. he was an entrepreneur. he was a family man but technically there's two andrew lows because we're about a nephew and an uncle and the family line which bridge five generations in the book that me and my co-author have put together. first of all, this is a scottish family.

they are from the area on the east coast of the scotland. the low family were not the most important people around. they were tenant farmers on the lands of the lords keefe who were the big shots in the neighborhood. and scotland had been into a bitter conflict with england for years and they had paid dearly for it. the scottish could not do business outside of their nation. they were banned from doing commerce in the british empire. but those restrictions were lifted in the -- in the early 1700s and we see scotsman pour out over the british empire and they appear all over america and the low family was one such scottish family. it was more than just a family. it became a syndicate of the extended family of the lows, the isaacs, the taylors and others.

it started with andrew low left glasgow and he was trained as a young accountant and businessman and he moved to savannah, georgia and established himself in the new century, the 1800s, the early years. and he brought a cash investment with him that would have been provided by the family or a wealthier member in glasgow and he set up a shop in savannah as a merchant who would be dealing with goods from england. he was very prosperous, bringing in goods from england, and shipping out raw produce to england and, of course, the slave trade was part of this also. but we see commerce becomes the center of the family of low. and he brings in nephews and others to savannah to work for this enterprise. he brought nephews, cousins and others in to try them out. they didn't work out so they'd

find a new fit. maybe they would be captain of one of the ships that the syndicate owned, or maybe they would run an office in glasgow or liverpool. so the family always took care of the family as they expanded and moved on. but for andrew low, sr., the question would always be who was the worthy one who should inherit my wealth and my business since i am a bachelor in my older years. and the answer was, that nephew, andrew low, jr. he rose to the expectation in savannah. he came to savannah and mixed and mingled with the social crowd, something the uncle was too busy for, too much of a merchant to care about nighttime parties and things. but young andrew was handsome, he was debonair, probably spoke with a little scottish brogue but that was okay in savannah since there were so many scotsman. and he will slowly take over the

business and prove to be an outstanding businessman. now, the interesting thing as we always look at that civil war as an interrupter of history. if it hadn't occurred, what would this have done or that have done? for andrew low, the answer would be he probably would have been a robber baron or a captain of industry. he was on that course buying into railroads, multiplying his money, working off two continents. he was buy far the wealthier man in savannah prior to the civil war. and had he not gotten so entangled in the confederacy, in writing bonds, contesting missing merchandise for the federal government, he probably would have been one of those industrialists working alongside his homeland patriot mr. carnegie and others. so it could have been a different story, but that war interrupted it.

now, the interesting thing is andrew low, jr., made so much money that it allowed his children to live a life of leisure, for better and for worse. andrew low, jr., had had two wives. both of them dying early in life, complications from childbirth. the first wife had two living children who became very prominent in english circles. one of them became married to an admiral who was knighted by the king and so she became a lady. so it's interesting to notice that we start out with a family that literally were serfs on the land and lived in a stone with a thatched roof and they end up meeting the queen and another child from the second marriage, william mackey low lived the

life of leisure with the sporting crowd. his entire agenda is when will the horse races be so i can enter my horses and when is the social season in london? and when does the hunting season open in scotland? he revolved his life around that. and within that set he met a very important person, the prince of wales, queen victoria's son. and they had those weekend parties that the victorians were so well-known for. when infidelities popped up. and this is an interesting part of the story because william mackey low was married juliet gordon of savannah. she, of course, will end up being the founder of the girl scouts. but as an early married woman, she is in the countryside of warrickshire and she lives in

wellsburn house and right across the way is warrick house and another daisy lives there, lady warrick, the lord's wife and they were good friends but they were gulfs apart in their personal ethics. lady warrick was quickly becoming the mistress to the prince of wales. in all these house parties there were all sorts of signals to let you know who was available once people moved to their bedrooms. you know, a shoe placed out the door pointing down the hall means i'm ready for this hour or that hour and all sorts of little things like that went on and the king always had his mistresses. and it's interesting to note by following the dates within the king's life that while he had dalliances with lady warrick, lord warrick was in georgia being hosted here in savannah, among his hunting trip he was on, by daisy low's father right

on oglethorpe avenue. so while they were dining on terrapin soup, the lord's wife was being anything true to her husband across the ocean next door to mr. gordon's daughter. so these type things probably offended the young daisy gordon. she was not of that class and infidelities were not part of her life or the life in savannah. there was another complication with her and it was her hearing. it was going from bad to worse. she had had an eardrum problem in the past and upon her marriage, she had a grain of rise embedded in the other ear which irritated it and the cure was worse than anything else. and she literally was deaf completely on one side and partially deaf on the others. and that probably muted her so

that she couldn't enjoy big galas where people are talking and noises bouncing. she probably felt outside of things. she probably seemed odd to many of these lords and ladies when she would answer one question with a completely different answer as deaf people normally do and so she was isolated and then the inevitable happened to her. her husband found another woman. it was rather sad. her sister-in-law had lost a child and willie low took his sister jessie to a seaside resort to have a weekend off from all the pressures that she had felt and there mrs. anna bateman, a widow spotted mr. low, and she moved in for the kill. she was everything his wife, daisy, was not. she moved in circles. she didn't mind those new mores and before you knew it, she had moved into wellsburn house with

the low's wing. daisy lowe's status was sliding down. as their marriage becomes a verbal assault back and forth, she finds the ultimate indignity, mr. low told the servants only to obey ms. bateman and not mrs. low. the handwriting was on the wall. she left her husband at this point. she was a serious problem in savannah and in england. these things were normally quieted down. the king's affairs and such were never mentioned. it was just impolite. marriage went on, no matter what and here this american woman is going to file for divorce. this is unthinkable. it was a sad situation for the turn of the century for this generation's of low. mrs. low was at her bottom point. she really has little or no allowance. the family is dividing, taking sides on all of this and in the middle is this strange mrs. bateman who has mr. low

around her finger. unfortunately, he is kind of going down the tubes. heavy drinking is affecting him in a negative way. bouts of illness and other things are clouding him and in 1906, he did die without executing the divorce while on a vacation trip with mrs. bateman to the castle, the home of the cornwall west family and that was winston churchill's stepfather's castle where they were renting. mrs. bateman inherited everything that he had. he left some money to sisters and small accounts and an allowance to his wife, but mrs. bateman received almost almost everything. this was very traumatic in a series of lawsuits followed which were rather scandalous to say the