won't work as soon as the newspaper editors go away. it weighs what the newspaper editor's summits are very highly. and even the placement on the page and what the font size is, it's, essentially, aggregating the judgment of expert human journalist editors not doing some sort of pure -- >> host: it's artificial. >> guest: yeah, yeah, exactly right. so in a way i think google news, you know, does some of these things that google search, for example, i don't know that it's doing as much. ..

>> is doable, but not yet done. as we started to go around. you run into more and more people who are at journalist school or programmers who are

saying we're looking on that product. you think it's an exciting -- you can view this has a problem or one the grand challenges. >> you've outlined oo supply side issue which is changing the algorithm. i want my expressed performances to be waited more. i'd like to be able to know more what's being done to me in my name. if you could change one thing, if you could pick as a place to start, one of your discussions or hopes from filter bubble to see happen in the world in the short term, what would you change first? >> i actually probably wouldn't do the facebook important button or something like that. i would do some -- i think there is probably a sort of low hanging fruit intervention that could be made with the facebook news feed that because -- facebook is so much more

important than twitter for better or for worse. >> host: because -- >> -- >> guest: because of the people using it. if you could start to adjust the news feed so it was permable for more important, this is important, this is not important, but letting the community, you know, indicate that, i think that could be, that could actually make a pretty significant difference. with a fairly low, that's not a whole new business for facebook to be in. >> it's not a completely different behavior either. >> right. >> thanks so much. it was great to sit down with you. >> thanks. sure.

>> that was "afterwords" which they with interviewed by journalist, public policymakers and other familiar with the material. it airs every weekend. >> next on book tv, ben shapiro argues that hollywood executive and executives have used the air waves to promote their liberal views. this is about 50 minutes. [applause] [applause] >> well, first of all, thanks so much to the heritage foundation for hosting me. it is an honor and a pleasure. i do consider heritage to be the

foremost -- what's more powerful in shaping our views? narrative or argument. here's the argument, by the end of the first trimester, they have brain waves, five fingers, operational heart or fingerprint. and yet each year, 1.6 billion abortions are performed. 91% of those are performed in the first trimester. now here's an anti-abortion narrative. jane was 16 years old. she got pregnant by her boyfriend, she was pretty, smart, and she knew that having this baa by was going to ruin her life. she started asking her friends, family members, and they encouraged her to go ahead do it. prompted by the people, she drove to the abortion clinic. she thought it was no big deal. as she walked into the clinic, something odd happened. another girl looked at her and said all babies want to be born.

she ignored her. your baby had a heart. she thought this was propaganda. your baby has fingernails. that was odd. she walked into the abortion clinic and sat down. she glanced around and couldn't help that everyone was playing with their fingernails. tapping them, she thought fingernails, i have a life growing inside of me. she walked out of the abortion clinic. that was the end of the story. let me ask you this. how many remember the statistic that you gave you about a minute and a half go? how many of you remember what prompted jane? everybody remembers. fingernails. even though of you who remember the statistic 1,465,000. they have abandoned as an

emotional tool. we think that intellectual argument trumps emotion. you hear it on talk radio all the time. we have -- of all of the logical arguments, we have all of the facts on our side. they rely on emotion all the time. yeah, well, because it works. we need to start taking that fight back. that's the power of narrative. that narrative, by the way, was from the movie "juno." hollywood, which is the political left, is run by liberals. liberals who discriminate, who sworn values, and who use telephone in particular as a tool in order to achieve the political ends. they use the narrative to push their point of view. they are clever about it. they recognize if they slide their messages in, it's much more effective than if they hit you in the head with a two by four. they create characters that we like. this is the whole principal of television. it has to be well written, based on character, based on people

who you'd rather spend time with, by the way. we are watching -- it's a lot more time than you are spending with your children and spouse. these characters better people that you like. hollywood does that. they have the characters act in ways of which you wouldn't approve. it's a very, very effective methodology. they use the behaviors to accept new lifestyle choices, politics, and policies. hollywood didn't used to be there way. in the 1950s or early 1960s, they were by and large conservative. they were always liberal. they tended to be jewish socialist. they were liberal in orientation. the battle between the two groups resulted in a relatively nonpartisan kind of television. they were also flashes of liberalism that shown through. but for the most part, it was sort of down the middle. with the death of kennedy,

hollywood's liberal creators became more strident. there was a key shift when kennedy died. we shifted from a hopeful liberalism, to america is a bad place and must be changed. at the same time in television they were beginning to be replaced by new executives who sprung from new york. young, urban, hip, liberal. everybody was pulling in the same direction. they did have one problem in terms of liberalism in television. the audience was still conservative. in 1965, it was a conservative country. television was faced with the dilemma. how could they program left when the country was right. they came up with a scam. here's the dirty little secret about tv. the tv creators don't give a damn. they could not care less.

they are not interested in you. they are interested in the advertisers. that's where they get their cash. when you flip on the tv, no matter what you are watching, you are not paying for it. you are not paying the creators of the television shows. the advertisers are. the only reason audiences are important in the market is because advertisers use those numbers to push to determine how many people are seeing their message. the tv tells the advertisers, here's how many people are watching the show. this is how much to pay for the sets of eyeballs. that's not all that tv creators and executives do. they say that certain elements are more important than other elements of the tv audience. not all eyes are equal. this is why you hear all the time about the 1836 or the 18-39 crowd. here's the rating. here's the real key rating. 18-49. if you think about it, why

should people 18-49 be arguments? by and large, they are living in mom and dad's basement, smoking dope, and unemployed. i'm in that age group. a lot of my friends are. the fact is that people who are 50 and above are the only people who have savings, and now they are spending money. it's an aging country. it's a baby boomers country. the leading network in terms of revenue is cbs. anyone under the age of 40, have you watch add cbs show? one? nobody watches "n.c.i.s." under 40. nobody. because everybody over the age of 50 watches the show. they rake in the show. they have scams the advertisers. why? abc, cbs, and nbc, in the late

1960s, abc only had affiliates in the major urban areas. they were getting their butts handed to them by cbs. which had affiliates everywhere. they had "beverley hillbillies" and "green acres." abc figures we've got to make money. we'll scam the advertisers and tell them that our viewers are more important than their viewers. because there's a bunch of liberal creators and executives and a bunch of liberal ad people, they said that was great. what is by and large the most liberal age group? 18-34, 18-49. that's why they've been allowed to program liberal. that's why they say the market demands liberalism. this is what primetime propaganda is different. they said tv is liberal. the left says you are liberal. you are asking for it. you don't like it, turn the channel. there's nothing to turn the

channel to. number two, they are not really marketing to you. they don't care about you. even if we did turn the channel, they tend to be older, tend not to live in urban areas, therefore, they are not the viewers that they are looking for. the result is no ramifications whatsoever for hollywood's liberalism. that comes through your tv on virtually every program that you watch, day in, day out, night in, night out. all the information has been put out before. what's different, i didn't want to just write about the history of tv, i went in and interviewed all of the people that made tv. i decided to get the story from the horse's mouth. how did i get the tapes? i'm not exactly acolous el conservative. i've had a nationally syndicated column since i was 17. i'm now 27. there's ten years out there. the beautiful fact, they stereotype, especially on the base of race and ethnicity.

it was no surprised they figured i was a liberal. my last name is shapiro and i went to harvard law school. 98% chance. i told them i was writing a book about the history of television, profiling the biggest names, and looking at the changes. i told them exactly what the book was about. i think they stopped listening at profiling the biggest names in tv. ego kills. yes, we are the biggest names in tv. as a reminder, i wore my harvard law baseball cap to the interviews. i do that. as i can, i cover my head. i have to for religious reasons. none of them goggled me. sure that you had to be one of them. i found is stunning. hollywood community that's not only proud of the liberalism, but believes what it's doing is right. they are discriminatory and

happy to use their power. they were here why d.c. to keep pushing liberalism. they twist the market as i've explained to achieve their own end. i'm going to play the audio. you can hear it from the people that we're talking about. let's start with leonard goldberg. he's a political independent, he's producers of "blue bloods" on cbs and producers of "charlie's angels" he's a remember of the board of cbs and aaron spelling's partner. half of the tv showed in the '80s, he was his partner. goldberg sums it up. let's see if we can play that now. >> one the producers live cultural right wingers.

there's special content. >> there's no question about that. i don't know about the content of the question. but in terms of the thought about various matters, social and political, it's 100%. anyone who denies is in not telling you the truth. i can say that as an independent. there's no question. but you say here's -- let's do a show about this. everyone is on one side. >> do you think that's a barrier to entry with people with different view points in hollywood? >> absolutely. the late mr. silver who was a friend and died too young. he was an artist. brilliant actor.

brilliant. he felt very strongly that his opportunities were limited because of his outspoken feeling about his views. you have to start with -- >> so the question is why is hollywood so liberal? the answer is obvious. for the most part, they despite conservatives. they live in an ecochamber. it is like liberal academia. everyone thinks they are expressing fact, not opinion. if you disagree, you are factually indirect. take susan harris. he's the creator of "soap "and "golden girls." here's what she had to say about conservatives across america. let's see if we can play that.

that is billy crystal. >> sit down. >> i'm thinking of having a sex change operation. ♪ ♪ ♪ [laughter] >> calm down, lady. did you just get out of prison? >> what's your response to the criticism of people with the moral majority and these kinds of group when they say television is too liberal and too progressive? >> idiots. [laughter] >> what can i say. look, there's a large section of this country that seems to be getting smaller. at least, you know, put president obama in office and the people i think have gotten a little bit smarter.

there are a lot of people who really are are -- they have medl minds in all sorts of way who aren't open to anything new. aren't open to anything reasonable. think science is a matter of belief. that's who you are dealing with. >> she's an absolute delight. she actually goes on there and says she couldn't write for that audience. this is an audience that i could never speak to. that is exactly the audience that she was speaking to. those were the people watching the show. why is there the disconnect between the creators and the people who watch? because the people, the people who create, the same folks that say that imperillism is the worse form of evil are the greatest. it ain't close. sometimes it's unconscious,

because they think they are reflecting real life america. that's what harris told me. she said she thought that tv lagged behind, rather than pushing them forward. even though she was behind soap which was one the first television shows. the truth is that tv reflects the lives of people and it transforms everybody else. even when liberals aren't trying to do that. they only reflect in the daily lives and coming another in the writing. sometimes, however, it is active. listen to nicholas meyer. he was the director of "star trek" 2 and 6 and creator of 4 and director "the day after." it was a movie about what would happen in the aftermath of the nuclear war. at the time, it was highest tv movie. it premiered during the 1984 election cycle. he's what he had to say about what he meant to do with "the day after." let's see if we can play that.

♪ ♪ >> my private notion was that this movie would unseat ronald reagan when he ran for

re-election. >> well, so much for that. [laughter] >> they use their work to convince us of particular goals. that doesn't stop them from trying even when they fail. the creator of "friends" we were going to play the clip. there's cursing and we couldn't bleep it out. she told me about one of your favorite episodes. the lesbian episodes. they cast newt gingrich's half sister. people in hollywood feels the need to slap us across the fast. they are socialist that have to live with themselves. you are a capitalist. i know i'm making money. at least i'm going to smack you across the face and remind you how evil you are. that's why we see the shock value. they don't feel good about themselves unless they have

shocked somebody president if you don't like it, we can turn the channel. we already talked about it. first, what do we turn the channel to. the tv industry is wildly degrated. second, they messed around with the advertising. third, they are getting sponsored by the federal government. for those of you under the age of 50, you are not going to remember the mothers -- smothers brothers. it was controversial. it got canceled in the third season. why? even if it had tremendous ratings? let's let mike dan, producer of cbs, explain. >> we would like to do a ballot, my brother and myself, combining my voices. sing a battle entitled

[inaudible] >> the thing that got into trouble because of the vietnam situation, he was using frank stanton, as his best friend. i was forced because they were so anti-vietnam. >> you got pressure from jonathan to cancel? >> yes. >> can you tell that story. it's interesting. >> it's very interesting. that's because lady byrd had frank stanton, the president of cbs in her household and frank on more than one occasion said, you are just being pushy. that's too much. it's very embarrassing. cbs said to me, because, you know, lady byrd, it was his pressure to take them off. >> that pattern of governmental

involvement continues today. it's a little deeper. my favorite example springs from where else? the obama administration. do you remember the henry lewis gates press conference. do you remember the lead up to that press conference? none of the networks wanted to have obama on. they gave a lot of kickback. he wanted to be on tv. we're going to lose a lot of money. his ratings had been dropping ever since he had been elected. his popularly was dropping and his ratings. he went over the heads to the corporate owners. he got them to green light the primetime program. he went to disney, ge, and cbs rather than the programs heads. all three are financial backers of the obama administration. he was named to obama's expert counsel about a year later, and he's one the head of the chief ben -- beneficiaries, ge, and he

traveled to hang out with fidel castro. here's the dirty part, they accepted the order. coincidently, they bought in because obama promised to gap their liability. buried in the article was a fascinating tidbit. in order to seal the deal, they had to chip in money $150 million to pay for television advertising in favor of obamacare. the obama administration spent $236 million on television commercials. you see how that works. obama gets who he wants, the industry gets what it wants, television advertising. everybody goes home happy expect the taxpayers who air waves are being used for back door propaganda efforts. you would imagine that the executives would stop this liberalism from going forward. leave aside for a moment the

reliance on big government and focus that they are officers. the executives want to make a different. doug herzog is the head of mtv and comedy central. here's doug on his role as the chief executive on mtv's networks. >> a lot of people on the social right, criticize mtv, bad effect on children, targets childrens and teenagers. how do you balance the need to be socially responsible and create a successful programming? >> well, i think, you know, -- >> right. >> i think what we used to say then and now, you are talking to

young people every day. responsibility comes with that. we kind of have, you know, super powers. >> uh-huh. >> we just pertain to young people. you have the use the powers for good. not evil. that kind of influence in the wrong hands could be a bad things. >> right. >> you know, mtv continues to be run by crooked people that, you know, believe in, you know, rock and roll and entertainment and entertaining people and having fun. you know, at the same time, i think they all believe that through the medium of television, they can entertain and also try to make the world a better place. >> what kind of message in particular -- >> well, look, you know, some of the classics. going back to when we started tv, some of the issues that we're tackling obviously rock the vote. you know, those kinds of campaigns over the years, you know, look for me one of my

proudest moments, you know, in terms of my program was the story on "the real world" in bringing him, you know, the issue of sexuality. >> even the executives feel the necessity to do something for the world. i love how he says they have super powers. if they fell into the wrong hand, they are doing good with mtv and comedy central. how many think they are doing something good for cultural debate. it isn't just about money to the people. it's about using the tremendous reach and power to promote a message, a liberal message. what's worse, they use their power to keep conservatives from working. this was the most stunning that i came across in primetime problem gap da what i spoke to people. it's the only area.

these are the people that were going to squash mccarthyism. here's what they have to say. the creator of "america's funniest home videos" and " "macgyver." here's what he told me. one the critiques you hear about hollywood, it's a leftest town. everyone tends to be liberal. only one side of one perspective tends to get told in scripted shows. what do you make of that critique? >> let's think back. well, i think, i think it's probably accurate. and i'm happy about it. if the accusation is there.

isn't that repulsive? interesting enough, when i called up norman, he did "all in the family" "jeffersons" and every major shows in the 1970s, he's also the founder of people for the american way. i asked him to stand up against discrimination. he hasn't turned my call twice. he also refused the calls in hollywood. there's a nonpartisan group dedicated to thought in hollywood. he said he approves of discrimination. he's a high ranking remember. two major hollywood conservatives, who's the oscar nominated writer, multiple emmy nominee resigned in protest over

the comments. not only has he not said anything, they refused to pass, claiming amazingingly enough, they had a nonpartisan organization and cannot come out against discriminate. it's purely orwellian. they are against it, because they can't stand up based on partisanship. that's how it works in hollywood. i wouldn't believe if it i hadn't felt it myself. i felt discrimination was mostly a myth. i mentioned goldberg earlier, when i interviewed him, we got along. when a top hollywood producers ask you had to write a pilot, you say yes. we went into development, i went out and got an agent. i had terrific meeting. he said it's the best meeting i had in ten years. he said one of my agents googled you and found your web site. at that point, my stomach went

through the floor. he thinks your political interviews will make it impossible for you to get a job. turns out one the producers had already seen my work and he had told the agent he knew who i was and he'd never work with me. that's how it works in hollywood. scores, hundreds of closet conservatives who will not come out for fear of losing their careers. and they are right. because they would. it includes some of the biggest names, names i won't mention, because it would damage their careers. what can we as motivated conservatives do? take off the blinders and recognize that tv isn't going anywhere. we are going to watch it, we are going to love it, because we love narrative. if we want to take back the culture, we need to stop worrying about politics and start worrying more about how we are going to take back the art of storytelling. ronald reagan knew the value. that's why his speaks were beautiful. our storytelling doesn't need to be reflected. we need to make art. we need to make excellent art.

that art is not conservatism. it is art first. and only conservative after wards. there is a difference. people asked me do we need a fox entertainment? no, we need a cbs. we don't watch entertainment for politics. we watch it inspite. as conservatives, we need to put our money where our mouths are. we need to start contributing. we need to give advertisers a place. we are good. but the advertisers are always going to have to go back to where the eyeballs are. they are in mainstream. unless we give them a different place to put their money, they are going to keep. i've joined up with declaration entertainment. that promotes the conservative values. my friend, jeremy who is closely associated, he's down forming a movie. it deals with the illegal

immigration crisis. we need more people are jeremy and you guys moving out and looking to take back the culture. it's a lot of fun. you can do this, we can do this together. first we have to recognize the power of storytelling. there's a reason when we uncover caves we have pictures that well a story. we are observed with each other and stories. that's why god speaks in story, new testament using parables, abraham lincoln were raised on the bible and shakespeare. both are narrative. we need to learn from the left in order to fight them. we can do it, we can fight the battle. we need your help. come to hollywood, make it an open town. we have to end the "primetime propaganda." thank you very much. [applause] [applause]

>> we will be glad to take questions. i've had two thoughts. you've given me a reason to actually like lady bird johnson. i can't imagine recasting cbs service. i'm sure there are few around here that would like to do that. we will take questions. we have a mike. if you would be so kind. we'll start over here. >> lenore, you said the people that watch the shows that are highly rated are call them middle of the roaders or conservatives. >> yup. >> why are they watching and doing good things for the advertisers if they are being offended every step of the way? it's a disconnect between what you said and the reality of advertising. which you is need to actually please people, don't you? >> and they do. the hollywood reporters did a fascinating study on what conservatives watch and liberals watch. liberals watch breaking ball,

and liberals catch "n.c.i.s." we watch and drive them. because they are less liberal. "n.c.i.s." used to be more conservative. don belisario, who produces it, is conservative. in certain ways, there's conservative show. there's no affirmative action on "american idol". if you suck at sicking, you are not making the finals. we tend to use the remote. we're not going to do it. fire and brim stone. we like it. it's unfortunately, it's a reality. that's why i'm asking people to have get active. >> i'm general mcknight, i was

head of the signal corps my last four years. 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. we also had bd films that said why you don't go out and -- the wrong kind of lady in trouble. [laughter] >> but my question is how do you use patriotism of the military to help reproduce something in hollywood that existed back when reagan and some of the other john wayne, all of those old characters were very conservative. >> yeah, jimmy stewart. >> that's right. jimmy stewart who 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 there today only 1% of our population and use them correctly without using them as a sop? >> yeah. >> which is being done by an awful lot of the liberals today. >> i think that first of all, it would take a game changing shift in the mentality of hollywood. let's put it this way. the last cause they mobilized for in force, the same way for world war ii is for the obama campaign. that's how liberal they are. i think the military itself, by the way, 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 sort of stuff. yeah, now the military is not involved at all. now the military doesn't want any part of it. because the military is afraid that the media is going to call it propaganda. we are watching propaganda efforts each and every day.

these were the people spitting on the soldiers. now they aren't. they are victims. i think it's a wedge. more people in the military service that help. we need to take it over from that perspective. >> ben, thank you for coming. bill. i wonder if you would comment on the higher education and the professors in the entertainment field. >> i mean it's the same as the rest of the liberal academia, only worse, the people that occupy kind of the screen writing are very obvious in their politics and obvious in who they want to promote.

it was interesting. marty, a professor at ucs, the ucs film and tv program, it's the norman leer, that tells you where is stands. him and i see eye to eye when it comes to the film being bam booze sals here. they are not interested in doing anything expect promoting liberalism. infiltrating academia is another area. we need to infiltrate, take them over. the left has taken over. we've been focused on the conservative. we focus on individuals. the left -- they are leftist. they focus on institutions. only one problem, institutions are unbelievably powerful. we've seated the news media, entertainment media, liberal academia. we are surprised when we turn out liberals.

the same way the left does. >> i'm an intern here. this is more of a philosophical question. do you think there is a distinction between propaganda and providing a narrative, or one in the same as the line kind of led more often than not? what are your feelings on that? >> my feelings on that, it's a book title. you are right, there is a slight distinction and fine line between providing social commentary that pushes certain messages and uses it as propaganda. i think they do use it consciously and unconsciously. the effect is the same on the viewer. when you watch it, as i said, they are creating -- let's put it this way, gay rights movement wouldn't be as powerful as it was without the tv supporting it. they think they 25% of americans

are gay. the real statistic is 2%. there's only one area where 25% of the population is gay. on television. people tend to take what they see on tv, without "ellen" and "will and grace" i doubt we are where we are. it's a passive social messages is probably the best way to put it. >> hi, i'm dell. i was with abc when "soap" came out. >> it's your fault. >> pardon? >> it's your fault. >> it's my fault. it's fred's fault. >> fred? >> silverman. and the thing was that that was -- they were so nervous about it going out that they fed the pilots to the o and os all before. before they went out. because they were so scared that it wouldn't be accepted. >> by the way, it wasn't

accepted. it was wildly boycotted. it is boycotted that it lost money, and abc kept it on the air. >> yup. then we caved. >> yup. >> 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 couple -- i've heard of a couple of others why is that 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 hiding and not being brave like john schneider and a few others. >> we did talk about this. when my book came out, we had a bunch of -- we had a budge of

hollywood conservative who's are present there. and one the people there said let's do this. let's have an out of closet. we're here, conservative, we're proud. people said, i think rightfully so, they are afraid of losing their jobs. to where there's no -- if there was conservative movie business, on the conservative business would get more clear. even people who are big names in the industry, i'm talking patricia, she's a wife on "everybody loves raymond" when i interviewed here, i don't feel bad, she said she was discriminated against.

found out she lost six jobs. i'll write that. she called me back, please take me out of the book. i don't want to lose work. that's unfortunately how it tends to work. let's put it this way, would it be great? yeah, but there would be a lot of people that lose their work, jobs, social business, and unfortunately they have businesses done. we need to provide them a haven and support network. they feel like they are out there alone. to a certain extent, they are. conservatives are watching liberal. until we build the support structure, they are going to stay in the closet. it was simple, unfortunately. >> other questions? down here in front. >> you mention briefly, eric here, intern here at heritage. you mention the declaration entertainment. i was wondering if you could talk more about that and the

chance of success? >> declaration was started as an llc, and we are concerting it to 501(c)(3) now. it's been getting press and making a difference. i think that my whole goal is to heightened awareness. we have a good shot of raising money and starting to train people and bring people into the industry and providing money for them. it's going to take people with deep pocketbooks to really get involved here. it doesn't take, by the way, a ton of money to produce a film. this is one the numbers that conservatives need to get over. what are saying, i'm going to sign a $50 million check? no, you can make a good movie for $100,000. it doesn't take money to make something good. it has to be good. it has to be a script. it can't be "american carol." it has to be something that's entertaining first and that is well directed and -- look, christopher nolan's first movie

was done on $5,000 with a friend. get on netflix, it's good. talent is talent. it's not going to take that much money 37 it's only going to take active support from outside. we need to make clear to the entertainment industry we're not going to stand for it. if they don't start catering, we will shift our money somewhere else. >> my name is robert small. i actually work for a federal science agency which is almost like a mini hollywood. i work with all phds. and actually take leave and come here on my breaks. it's because a breath of fresh air. but i was just -- and i also -- i write on the side and have written for american thinker -- >> yeah. i've read your stuff. >> how has the popularity -- your book is rather think. i'm sure you deal with it. how has the popularity of unscripted television with the

ride to reality tv upheld, how did that change the narrative or the control over the narrative? >> yeah. >> from scripted. and how did it cause any ripples of concern? >> they prefer to see in nonpolitical. my makes reality tv. and, well, she appreciates it. the truth is that reality tv blames the success of reality tv on low production cost. we don't have to pay the writers guild. there's some of that. i think the popularity of reality tv is almost in direct response. i think that more and more conservatives are interesting in watching something like "the apprentice" or "american idol." when you watch "american idol" smack you across the face. it's a brick. you know you are not going to get sucker punched for the most

part. obama will stick his nose in. reality tv is new wave. i think the internet is really the answer. it's going to kill a lot of it. we will have the means of distribution. again, we want something -- people on the internet, people tend to think you can make something that's looks like fox news without spending the money that fox news spends, in order to look like fox news. it cost the same on the distribution. but if we spend the money, use the internet as distribution. netflix is eating everybody's lunch. there's a reason for that. i think that model is going to start becoming more and more prevalent. hollywood is scared. as the internet takes over, there's an opportunity for a ground shift in the politics of hollywood. i think we need to take advantage at the early inception point. they are going to take over that medium the same way they have

taken over all of the others. >> final question. in the media. what more can you say about the transformation of david mammit, and do you know if he may do anything in the television in the future? >> david's transformation has been very cool to watch from the outside. i helped plan a party for him about a week and a half ago. he's -- you know, 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. i'm sure now that he's done this, he's going to lose a lot of friends. i would prefer to see him talk more about hollywood and less about conservative ideals. because i think he's new to the game. which is -- you know, it's -- in my opinion, i'm not very much of the dick morris school of thought. you are new to the game. you get to preach to the rest of us. i've been here for ten years. i'm only 27. i was conservative from inception. i've been studying this for a long time. if you are newly converted,

don't get occupy -- get up on the soap box. for david mammit do it, it's brave and courageous. i would love to see him end discrimination. it used to be a first amendment town and can be again. he has weight in the industry. that's why his book is doing well. he has weight. people know. if he leveraged the weight to change hollywood, can you imagine that? kelsey grahammer, we need get to active. but they need to start leveraging the weight and power to start making a difference, i think. >> thank you, ben. >> thank you so much. [applause] [applause] >> is there a nonfiction author or book you'd like to see

featured? twitter us president >> what are you reading this summer? booktvs wants to know. >> let me mention one book i just finished. it's an autobiography entitled " infidel." a somalian-born woman that was brought up in the war torn area there. lived in several african and middle eastern countries. finally escaped to holland and got political asylum there and became a member of parliament. she was involved in a real controversy based on a movie that she deals and go produced about the harshness of itself -- islam and the way it's being

swept under the rug by western countries. this resulted in being assassinated in holland. and being put under productive custody for some several weeks. the basic premise of the book is that number one the countries that she observed in africa and the middle east are being held back by the religion of islam. particularly because of its harsh treatment of women and not allowing 50% of the population to reach their full potential. and also that western countries, such as holland bicepping an extreme version of multiculturism are actually encouraging radical, fundamentalist, islam to take

hold and be a part of a western democracies with their distreatment of women with their honor, killings, their female mutilation and things of that nature. so she calls on western democracies to work towards better assimilation and integration of people who have immigrated from former muslim countries. >> tell us what you are reading this summer. send us a tweet at booktv. >> booktv is at book expo america. the annual convention in new york city looking at some of the fall 2011 books. pleased to be joined by george gibson, the publisher of bloomsbury press. let's start with carl bogus'

book on bill buckley. >> this is a first autobiography of bill buckley. he was an icon and the father of conservatism has it is known today. but a remarkable man. and very little has been written about him. this is the first full scale bioing a if i. >> did he have access to his library? >> he had access to every available resource. interestingly enough, he's more liberal in the political persuasion. it's very interesting balance. i think it's going to fascinate people on both sides of the aisle. >> somebody who is not liberal is an author that we've covered often on booktv who is victor davis hanson. now i see a novel. >> this is his first novel. remarkable, it is. the novel about the great greek and the extraordinary battles he fought. had brings alive warfare in the ancient world in a way that very few people can.

because he knows so much about history and ancient history, the book is alive with that kind of detail. it's a fascinating thing for him stood to -- him to write an novel. it's going to be a success. >> inside mexico's criminal insurgency. >> well, ian guerliio has gone inside and interviewed everybody from the gang leaders to the police and tells the inside story of what is happening in mix. the extraordinary upheaval in their society. and because he tells it from all angles, you come to understand who is responsible for it. it's not just the gangs, the government bears a responsibility as well. and it has a huge effect on the united states. the drugs obviously from mexico are all over the united states. >> "american crisis." >> bill fowler is a

distinguished professor at north eastern. we were talking about the troops in 1783 after the war ended. the war hasn't ended. i thought he ought to write about 1781 to '83. we think it ended when corn wallace surrounded, but it didn't until they led the troops out of new york. this is the story of the dangerous two years. the united states could have so easily fallen apart. they had no money, the states were not aligned. they wouldn't give any money to pay the armies to the army was unpaid and on the verge of mutiny. the treaty with paris hadn't been signed. in many ways, washington held it together. that's what the book is about.

>> those are some of the books coming out in fall 2011. if you would, give us a snapshot of bloomsbury press. >> bloomsbury, it's more than just bloomsbury press, bloomsbury usa has three imprints, and walker and country, the main imprint does a lot of fiction, food, national history, and some sports-related titles. bloomsbury press does the history, science, and current affairs and economics, and the walker list does some history and science as well, some self-improvement books and a lot of language books. :