not. people who were very sophisticated; people who were very rural. i put those all in the mix. >> i want to thank you and assure everyone when you have an opportunity to read this book, it's true oral history. it's the native american voices that you will be hearing, and we thank you for being our guest today. >> thank you. >> time for one more question? ..

>> it's a privilege to speak about my book you. let me begin by asking, what's more powerful in shaping our views? narrative or argument? here's an argument against abortion. by the end of the first trimester fetuses have brain waves, five fingers on each hand, a stomach, functioning kidneys, they have an operational heart, fingerprint. each year 1.6 million abortions are performed and 91%, 1,466,000 are performed in the first trimester. has an antiabortion narrative. james was 16. she got pregnant by her boyfriend that she was pretty, smart and knew having this baby was going to ruin her life. she started asking her friends, her family members and all encouraged her to go ahead and do it. prompted by these people she drove to the abortion clinic.

she thought it was no big deal. as she walked into the clinic something odd happened to another girl cautioned her and said all babies want to be born. james ignored or. what did this young woman no? your baby has a hard. jane in order again. your baby has fingernails. now, that was odd. this should occur. she walked into the abortion clinic and she sat down. she glanced around and she couldn't help but notice that everyone is playing with their fingernails. tapping them on the tables, chewing on them and she thought i have a life growing inside of me and she walked out of the abortion clinic and that was the end of the story. how many of you remember the statistic i gave you about a minute and a half ago? how many of you remember what prompted jane to walk out of the abortion clinic? everybody remembers the fingernails. and i promise you we cannot even those who your remembered the statistic, 1,466,000, those who

remember the forgotten assist a six and would have remembered the finger nails. narratives matter. we have fought into the trap of thinking that intellectual argument tends to trump emotion. you hear it on talk radio. we have all the facts on our side, but they just rely on a motion all the time. because it works. we need to start taking that fight back. that's the power of narrative. that was from the movie juno. hollywood which is achieved foremost political tool of the left, totally run by liberals at this point, discriminate against conservatives, scorn traditional american values and to use television in particular as a tool of propaganda in order to achieve their political ends. they use the narrative to push their point of view. they are very clever. they recognize if they slide their messaging and it's much more effective.

so they create characters that we like and we want to spend time with their it has to be well written but it has to be based on character. it has to be based on people. on average we are watching two-three hours of television a night. it's more time you're spending with her children, your spouse, the other people in your family. these characters better be people you like. hollywood does that. they have those characters act in ways of which you wouldn't approve. it's a very, very effective methodology. they create a set of friends and they use the behavior of those new friends to convince us to accept new lifestyle choices, new politics and new policies. hollywood didn't used to be this way. in the '50s and early '60s hollywood executives were buying archconservative. early creators were always little. they tend to be jewish socialist from your. they were liberal in orientation. the battle between these two groups resulted in a relatively

nonpartisan kind of television. for the most part it was sort of down the middle. with the death of kennedy, hollywood liberal creators became more strident. there was a key shift in kind of liberal thinking in america when kennedy died. we shifted from hopeful liberalism, the future was going to be great, entering the new frontier, to america is a bad place and must be fundamental change. at the same time in television, the executives were beginning to become more liberal. they were being replaced by new breed of advertising agency executives who sprung from the middle of new york. they were young, urban and they were liberal. so everybody was kind of now pulling in the same political direction. they did have one problem in terms of liberalism on television the audience was conservative. in 1965 this was a very conservative country. television was faced with a dilemma. how could they program less when

the country was right? they came up with a skin. this is what hollywood is fantastic and. here's a dirty little secret about you. the creators don't give a damn about you. they could not care less about you. they are interested in the advertisers. the advertisers are where they get their cash. when you turn on tv, no matter what you are watching your not paying for it except your cable fees. the advertisers are big the only reason audiences are important in the market is because advertisers use those numbers to determine how many people are seeing their message. tv tells the advertisers how many people are watching the show. this is how much you should pay for those sets of eyeballs. that's not all tv careers and executives do. they say certain elements of the audience are more important than other elements of the audience. not all eyes are equal. this is what you hear all the time in the 18-34. every time you look at nielsen

ratings about a particular show they so here's the rating and here's the real key rating, 18-49 but if you think about that, it makes no sense. why should people 18-490 targeted advertisers? people are 18-34 are living in mom and dads isn't, smoking dope and being unemployed. i am in that age group, okay? a lot of my friends are. the fact is that people who are 50 and above are the only people in this country right now who have savings, disposal and, and are spending money. this isn't aging country. it is a baby booming country which means the leading network is cbs. have you ever watched the cbs show? one. no, he watches ncis under 40. nobody. this is one the highest rated shows on television because and one over the age of 50 watches these shows. cbs rakes in the dough. tv executives have scanned the advertisers anybody know those

people truly matter. they have lied. why do they lie to the advertisers? there were three major networks, abc, nbc and cbs. abc on had affiliates and major urban areas. they were getting their butts handed to them by cbs which had affiliates everywhere. it was having all of the top shows with beverly hillbillies, greenacres and petticoat junction. not exactly liberal, urban type shows. what happened is abc figured we've got to make money, how will we do this? we will tell the advertisers our viewers are more important than their viewers. because there is a bunch of liberal creators and executives and a bunch of little ad agency people they said that sanskrit. what is by large dose level age group in the country? 18-34, 18-49. that's what they been allowed to program liberal and that's why they lie and they said the market demands are liberalism. this is what shuts down conservative. this is what primetime propagandist of the everyone is

critique tv before so tv is liberal. and the left says so tv is liberal. you're asking for. turn the channel. only one problem that there's nothing to turn the channel to. the same people control all the channels. number two, they are not marketing to you. they don't care about you. 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 there looking for. the result is there are no ramifications whatsoever hollywood to ever deepening liberalism. that comes through your tv on virtually every program you watched day in and day out, night in, night out. i didn't just want to write about the history of tv. i interviewed all the people who may tv. i decide to get the story from the horses mouth. the beautiful fact about liberals, the question is how do they get the state's? i'm not exactly a closet conservative i've been overly conservative sense of in 16 and i've had national syndicated

column. there's 10 years worth of records out there about my politics. the beautiful fact about liberals is that they stereotype on a regular basis especially on the base of race and ethnicity. it was no surprise they figured i was a liberal when i e-mailed them. my last name is shapiro and i want to harvard law school. i told them i was writing a book about the history of television, that are struggling the biggest names and i was looking at the changes in social messaging from dick van dyke sex in the city. i think there probably stopped listening that proclaimed the biggest names in tv. ego kills. as a subtle reminder of my credentials, i wore my harvard law baseball caps to the interviews i did i do that on a regular basis. i cover my head. i have to cut my hair for religious reasons. netizen google me. what i found was to hollywood to

me that is not on account of liberalism but believes deeply that what it is doing is right. they are openly and happy to use their power. they would hand in glove with the government to keep pushing liberalism. that happens to subsidies, backscratching i'll talk more in a second and they twist the market to achieve their own in. i'm going to play some of the audio for you so you can direct from the people that we are talking about. let's start with leonard goldberg. he is a political independent producer of blue blood on cbs and charlie's angels. he is a member of the board of cbs and he was and spellings old partner. and spelling made probably have a major tv shows in the 1980s and '70s. he was his partner.

>> that is one of the criticisms you hear a lot from cultural right-wingers, there's too much sexual content. >> there's no question about that. i don't know about the content being questioned but in terms of the thought about

>> he started as a democrat. he became a brilliant actor. brilliant. he felt very strongly that his opportunity, because of his outspoken feeling about his views. hollywood is a liberal community. >> why is hollywood so liberal? the answer is obvious. they despise conservatives. they live in an aqua chamber. hollywood is like liberal academia writ small. everyone feels they are expressing fact. take for example, susan has. creator of a couple of the same 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.

>> and these are the campbell's. and this is soap. >> mother, how would you like a daughter? >> that is billy crystal. >> just tell me spend time thinking of having a sex change operation. ♪ thank you for being a friend ♪ traveled down the road and back again ♪ ♪ >> calm down, ladies. did you just get out of prison? >> what's your response to the criticism of people, moral majority in these kinds groups

>> she's an absolute delight. [laughter] >> she goes on there and she said she couldn't write for that audience. she said this is an audience i could never speak to. that was exactly the audience she was speaking to. those were the people who are watching so why is that this giant disconnect between the creators and the people who watch? because these people, the people

who create television, the same folks as an imperialism at the worst form of evil in the universe are the greatest cultural imperiled in world history. and it ain't close. sometimes it's unconscious because they think they're reflecting real-life america would affect their transforming a. that's what here's doping. she said she thought tv lag behind cultural shift rather than pushing them for even though she was behind soap which were was the first network television shows to promote gay rights. the truth is tv reflects the lives of people in hollywood and it transforms everybody else. even when liberals are not exactly to do that. they reflect what they see in the daily lives and it comes out in the writing. sometimes it is active. listen to nicholas meyer. he was the director of star trek. the writer of star trek 4 and the director was the most successful tv movies of all time, the day after. a day after was a movie about what would happen in the aftermath of nuclear war at the time is one of the highest rated tv movies in history of the

media. here's what nick meyer had to say about what he meant to do with the day after. let's see if we can play that. ♪ ♪ ♪

>> well, so much for that. they use their work to convince us of particular goals. that doesn't stop them from trying even when they feel. the creator of friends and we're going to play this clip but there was cursing in it, we couldn't believe it. she told me about one of her favorite episodes and television. lesbian wedding episode in the first season of friends. she said she was cast as a quote unquote a few to the right. people in hollywood feel the need to slap us across the face but some of that springs from deal. these are very, very rich people. they are also so they have to live with themselves. the way they did it is by looking across america and saying okay, you are a bunch of

hapless, i know i'm making money, but i'm going to smack you across the face and remind you how evil you are. that's why we see so much shocked by. they don't have good about themselves and less than just soccer summit in the nose. only a couple problems, first what do we turn the channel to? the tv industry is widely vertically integrated. basically six companies control everything you see. the same group control the entire industry. the headmaster and with the advertising industry as i told you. third, they're getting subsidized and sponsored by the federal government. the relationship goes all the way back. take for example, the smothers brothers. everybody else remember the smothers brothers because it was highly controversial and got tremendous ratings. it got canceled in the third season. why did it get canceled? let's let my game was one of the vps at cbs explain why that show got canceled.

>> sing about it.

>> that pattern of government continues today. is a lot deeper today. my favorite example springs from warehouse, the obama administration. you remember the hair is louis gates press conference where the police acted stupidly? do you member the lead up to that press conference? none of the networks want to obama on. they gave a lot of take back. he wanted to be on network tv during prime time. is ratings on the networks have been dropping like a stone ever since he been elected. his popularity was dropping and so what is ratings. he went over the heads of the networks and he went directly to their corporate owners. he got into greenlight his primetime program.

the head of on one of the chief beneficiaries of obama's, and the same those once travel to cuba to hang out with fidel castro. in any case, here's the real dirty work at the networks accepted the order from obama. about two weeks later "the new york times" runs a story about the pharmaceutical industry buying into obamacare. they bought in because obama promised to captain liability at $80 billion over 10 years. buried in that article was a fascinating little tidbit. in order to seal the deal the pharmaceutical companies have to chip in a little bit of money, $150 million to pay for television advertising in favor of obamacare. by way of comparison the obama administration during the entire 2008 election cycle spent 236 mine dollars on television commercials. to see how that works? obama gets what he wants. the industry gets what they want. everyone goes home happy except the taxpayers.

you would imagine that the big stop it would be the executive. you think the executives would stop this. leave aside their reliance on big government and focus on the fact these people are corporate officers. they are supposed to be focused on earning revenue for the shareholders or only one problem. the executives want to make a difference. so just listen to doug herzog, the current head of the parent company of mtv and comedy central. here's doug herzog on his role as the chief executive at mtv networks. >> how to balance the need to create successful programming? >> i think, i think what we used

to say, pretty much what they say now,

>> rock the vote and those kind of campaigns over the years, you know, for me one of my proudest moments in terms of my career as a programmer was the moral story on the real world. bringing the issue of sociology ttp. >> even the executives feel the necessity to do something for the world. i love how he says they have superpowers and if this fell into the wrong hands, it would be disastrous. he says they're 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. it's about using their tremendous reach and power to promote a message, liberal message. what is worse is the use their power to keep conservatives from working in the tv industry.

this was perhaps the most stunning admission i came across. they discriminate against conservatism. they have no problem with. it's the only very of american life, these are the people who were against blacklist. here's what they have to say when it comes to discriminate against people with whom they disagree politically. here's what he told me when i asked him exactly that question. >> one of the could teach you lot of hollywood come especially from the cultural right wing is hollywood is a leftist down, everyone in it happens to be liberal and only one perspective tends to get told in scripted shows the what do you make of that critique? >> i have to think back. well, i think, i think it's

probably accurate. if the accusation is there, i'm okay with it. >> isn't that kind of repulsive, kind of atrocious? but interesting enough when i called norman lear who is dean of television rights, the guy who did all income, the jefferson, virtually every major show of the 1970s but he's also founder for the people of american way. i asked him to stand up against such discrimination. he hasn't returned my call, twice. it's worse than that. he also refused the call of the hollywood reporter and variety. there's a nonperson group dedicated to diverse lot in hollywood. a high ranking member of this caucus. norman is a cofounder of the caucus. two major hollywood conservatives, the austin a mid-writer for the

apprenticeship of lenny kravitz, and norman those of form of cbs entertainment editor and resigned from the caucus in protest over those comments. not only has norman they're not sitting to the caucus itself refused to pass an anti-discrimination leslie should claiming amazingly enough that they're a nonpartisan organization and, therefore, cannot come out against discrimination. [laughter] it's purely orwellian. they are against it so they can't stand up against discrimination based on partisanship. that's how it works in hollywood. i wouldn't believe if i hadn't felt it myself. when i first read this book i believe discrimination in hollywood would mostly a myth. i mentioned leonard goldberg earlier. when i interviewed him we got along famously. he asked me if i write about me some expenses at harvard law school. when a top hollywood producer ask you to write about you say yes. that's what do. i went out and got an agent at everything was going swimmingly. i had a terrific meeting with the agent.

until three weeks later i got a call. he said when my a just googled you and found your website. at that point my stomach kind of goes through the floor. he said i'm not sure we can represent you because you think your political views will make it impossible for you to get a job in this down. turns out one of the producers had already seen my work and he told the agent that he knew who i was and he would never work with me. that's how it works in hollywood. i know scores, hundreds of closet conservatives in hollywood who will not come out for fear of losing their careers. they are right because they would lose their careers to some of the biggest names in industry. what can we as motivated conservatives do? we need to take off the blinders and recognized tv isn't going anywhere. we will watch it. we will love it. because we love america. if you want to take back the culture we need to stop supporting so much about politics. when you start worrying more about how we're going to take back the art of storytelling. ronald reagan is about as -- the

value of storytelling. our storytelling doesn't need to be restricted in the political sphere. we need to make art. we need to make excellent art. that art is not conservatism with an artistic bent to there is a difference. people have asked me, we need a cbs entertainment that happens have conservative values. we don't watch entertainment for politics as we watch entertainment in spite of politics. we watch entertainment to be entertained as conservatives we need to put our money where our mouths are. we need to contribute to a new hollywood. we need advertisers an alternative place to put the bucks. we're good at boycotting the advertisers will have to go back to his eyeballs or and eyeballs on mainstream television. they will keep putting it where we don't want him to put it. that's why i've joined up with declaration entertainment to raise money for great entertainment that promotes traditional conservative values. my friend who is closely

associate with gary sinise, filming a movie right now and it is with the illegal immigration crisis. we need more people like jeremy. we need people like you guys moving out from d.c. and looking to take back the culture. it's a lot of fun. you can do this and we can do this together. first where to recognize the power of storytelling. there's a reason when they undercut the case in prehistoric eras they have pictures that tell a story. as human beings we are obsessed with each other and obsessed with stories. that's why god speaks and stories in the hebrew bible. abraham lincoln was raised on text pre-much, the bible and shakespeare. we have lost the are. we need back. we need to learn from the left in order to fight them and we can do. we can fight the battle. we need your help, your money, your time and your child to come to hollywood, make it actually opened up once again. we have to in the primetime propaganda. thank you very much.

[applause] >> we'll be glad to take questions or i have a few thoughts during this. number one, you have given me a reason to actually like lyndon johnson. and i can't imagine retesting cbs as a conservative broadcasting service. i'm sure there are a few rendered would like to do that. we will take questions. we have a mic. we will start over here and then he will take the rest of them. >> you said in fact the people who watched the shows that highly racist or, call in either middle of the road or conservatives. why are they watching and doing good things for the advertisers if they're being offended every step of the way? there's a disconnect between what you said and the reality of advertising which is unique to please people, don't you?

>> and they do please people. the hall reporter did a study where they looked at what conservatives watch and what liberals the liberals watch breaking bad and maddening to conserve its watch american idol and ncis. we watch the top rated shows. because they're less liberal than the alternative. ncis used to be a more considered show. -- a more conservative show. american idol is a conservative show. if you have a bad story and you a second thing you're not making fun. we can use our remote to stem the campus to much to ask conservatives to turn off the tv because we will not do. we need to get over the concept that the fire and brimstone you can turn off or television or the country will go to hell in handbasket, it just doesn't work. we like to be. it's unfortunate but it's a reality and that's what i'm asking people to get active.

>> i was head of the signal corps my last four years and we made a lot of films, particularly in world war ii, the training films and so forth. >> and why we fight. >> oh, yeah. why we fight. we also had the defense, why you don't go out, the wrong kind of lady. but my question is how do you use the patriotism of the military to help reproduce something in hollywood that existed back when reagan and some of the other, john wayne, all those old characters were very conservative. >> jimmy stewart stuff that's right. jimmy stewart was a bomber pilot. how do you take, and i've worked

with literally thousands of soldiers. i have 30,000 people in one of my commands. they are patriotic. they want to be down the middle. how do you take the military today, only 1% of our population and use them correctly without using them as a sop which is being done by awful lot of the liberals today? >> i think first of all it would take a game changing shift in the mentality of hollywood to do that. let's put it this way. the last cause they mobilize for in force, the same way they did in world war ii was the obama campaign. that's how liberal they are. i think the military itself by the way has moved away from the idea of moving film as a medium. it used to be the military itself would be involved in doing this stuff. now the military is not involved at all. now the military doesn't want

any part of it because the military is afraid the media will call them propaganda efforts but as i say we are watching propaganda efforts each and every day. we need more military people going to hollywood and getting involved. they have one of the billy. this has shifted. in the '60s and '70s these were the people spitting on the soldiers coming back. now they're not spending any more. they portray them as victims. that's the typical take. if you walk into hollywood in military uniform, they are afraid of discriminating people in uniforms. i think that's a which we can use. we need more people of ex-military service to get involved in the industry. we need to take over from inside from that perspective. >> thank you for coming. i wonder if you would comment on higher education and the professors, the curricula in the entertainment field?

>> it's the same as the rest of liberal academia only worse. the people who occupy kind of the screenwriting positions are very obvious in the politics and obvious in who they want to promote. it was interesting. marty kaplan, a professor at usc, this gives you an idea. usc's film program, film and tv program is the norman lear film and tv program. that tells you what is typically. marty kaplan, he and i see eye to eye when it comes to the advertisers inc. bamboozle. i asked him to take a look at the book. he said i will get around to. they are not that interested in doing anything except promote their own liberalism. infiltrating academia is another thing we have to do, or you. my first book, "brainwashed," was about that. the left has taken over institutions. we are conservatives. we focus on individuals. the left or left to speak to focus on institutions the institutions are unbelievable power.

we are surprised when they start churning out labels? we need to get involved in institutional takeover the same 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? are the one and the same? what are your feelings on that? >> my feelings on that is it's a book title, and you're right, and there is a slight distinction and there's a fine line between providing social commentary that any further pushes certain messages and using it as a propaganda medium. i think they do in many cases use it consciously and in many cases unconsciously. effect is the same on the viewer. as i said their great asset -- a gay rights movement would not be anywhere near as powerful as was

without the helping industry actively promoting it to i guess i'll pull yesterday the fed huge number of americans say 25% of americans are gay. the real statistic is 2-5%. people tend to take what they see on tv for granted. i doubt we are where we are in this debate. it is an active propaganda medium and it's a passive social message need to buy the best to put it. >> i was with abc when so came out -- when soap came out. ipaqs that it is fred's fault. >> fred harris? >> fred silverman. and the thing was that they were so nervous about it going out that they fed the pilot to

everyone before, before they went out because they were so scared that it would be accepted. >> and it wasn't accepted that it was widely boycotted. it was so boycotted it lost money every single season. abc kept it on the it anyway. >> yeah. and then we caved. now, this is my question. you already named one, or i think to organizations that have within them conservatives, the screenwriters or whatever they are, and why is it -- i know, 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 are? you know. and let's do it. let's get a hold of it instead of just typing and not being brave like john snyder and a few

others. >> we did talk about this. when the book came out, i have my book launch party, we had a bunch of, a bunch of hollywood conservatives who were present there. one of the people said let's do this, let's have an out of closet tsunami. let's show everyone where here. we are here, we're conservative and we are proud. people said and i think rightly so they're afraid of losing their job. the problem is the conservative movement has not provide the infrastructure yet to where there's no risk to. if your people out there who are really funny the concert film and tv business to the tune of millions of dollars, to be a lot less fear. it's unfortunate reality but even people who are big names in industry, i've talked about like patricia shiu, probably the biggest conservative star in industry right now. when i interviewed her for this book and i don't feel bad saying this because in the past three weeks she has, in sessions to

scrimmage against in hollywood. she doesn't appear in the book, when i interviewed her for the book i asked if this or discrimination in hollywood? a few days let you copy up and she said i started asking around and i found i've lost six specific jobs due to my political affiliation. i said i will write that the jacobe back and said please take me out of the book. i don't want to lose work. that's unfortunate how it tends to work in hollywood. let's put it this would they be a lot of people who lose their work, jobs, social business. they wouldn't get invited to parties anymore and that's a business is done. we need to provide a haven. we need to show them there's a support network. they feel they are out there alone. conservatives are watching liberal tv. and to build a support structure they will stay in the closet. it is that simple unfortunately. >> you mentioned briefly

declaration entertainment. i was one if you talk more about that and what you think it's chance of success is. >> declaration was started as an llc before i got involved. we are converting over to a 501(c)(3) now that i think after this book it's been getting a lot of press and making a big difference in town and causing resignations. my whole goal is to heighten awareness. i think we will have a good shot at raising some money and starting to train people and bring people into the industry and providing money for the i think it will take some people with very deep pocket books to really get involved here. it doesn't take a ton of money to produce goods and. i think they need to get over -- what are you saying, i'm going to sign 50 million-dollar check to make one good movie? no, you can make a really good movie for 100 grand. it doesn't take a lot of money to make something good but it has to be good. it can't the american character

that has to be something that is entertaining first and is well directed. talent is talent regardless of how much money you put in. it's not going to take that much money. it will take active support from the outside both monetary and vocally. we need to make clear to the entertainment industry we will not stand for this and if they don't start catering to our needs that we will shift our money somewhere else. >> i work for a federal science agency which is almost like a mini hollywood. all the ph.d's nationally and actually take leave on some my brakes. i was just, and also have written for american thinker spent i have read your stuff.

>> how has the popularity, the book is rather thick, but how is the popularity, with the rise of reality tv, how did that change the narrative or the control over the narrative from scripted and how, didn't cause any ripples of concern? >> they prefer to see non-political terms. my mom makes reality tv shows. [inaudible] >> she appreciates it. the truth is reality tv, they tend to blame the success of reality tv its low production cost and we don't have to pay the writers guild. we don't have to pay a lot of residuals but the truth is there some of that. i think the popularity of reality tv is almost a direct response. i think more more concerts are interest in watching something like the apprentice or american idol which is a baseline

concerted value. unleashing a when you watch american idol for the most part nobody will smack you across the face with a break. you know you and i suckered punched by the left when you watch american idol, although obama will stick his nose in where ever there is an audience. reality tv is the new wave. i think the internet is the answer. i think the internet will kill a lot of this because we will have the means of distribution. again it will cost money. it's so fun. on the internet people tend to think that you can make something that looks like fox news without spending the money. it cost the same amount of money. if we spend the money we can use the internet. netflix is eating everybody's lunch. there's a reason for that it has its on demand and you don't have to watch the commercial. that model is going to start becoming more and more prevalent as the and it takes over, people in hollywood know this and their stupid as the internet takes over there'll be a ground shift or at least an opportunity for

ground shifts in the politics of hollywood. we need to take advantage of that right now. otherwise they will take over that the same way they've taken over all the others. >> what more can you say about the transformation of david, and do no if you may do anything in television in the future? >> davis transformation has been very cool to watch from the outside. 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 is done if he will lot of friends. i would prefer to see and talk more about hollywood and less about conservative ideals in general because i think he is new to the game. in my opinion, i'm not very much of the dick morris school of thought. you are new to the game and you

get to preach to the rest of the i've been here for 10 years and i've been here longer than that back i'm a 27 years old. i've been studying this stuff a long time. if you're new to convert i don't think you ought to be up on soapbox. but for david to be doing it is a brave and courageous thing. and i think i would love to see david get involved with the campaign to really and discrimination in hollywood because he used the first amendment town. it can be a first amendment town again. he has weight in industry. that's why his book is doing so well. he has weakened people know that if he leveraged that way to change hollywood, can you imagine the affect? we need more heavyweight conservatives. we need them all to get active. there are some out there. individual cases. i pretty much named every conservative in hollywood but they need to start leveraging their weight and power to start making a difference, i think. >> thank you. thank you so much. [applause] >> booktv has over 100,000

twitter followers. be a part of the excitement. i'll booktv on twitter to get publishing news, schedule updates, author information and contract with office during our live programming. twitter.com/booktv. >> professor scott allen, what's transeventeen? >> this book was motivated by concerns about rising poverty rates in u.s. over the last decade that occurred during a time when the way we help poor people change as well. was out of reach now are the social service programs that composed of large share of how we help low income americans and boquist focused on what these programs are located and how difficult it might be for many low income working poor families to access. >> give us give us an example. >> when we think about helping low income people, we think the welfare of overstepping those those are important, but we spend just as much money if not more on social service programs

like job training, education, child care, housing assistance, mental health that promote greater well being, help people find and keep a job. but i can't mail you job training like i can a welfare check or a food stamp benefit. and so becomes important when these programs are located. and as the book discusses, there's a lot of factors that weigh on where pro-guns are located and it turns out that they are least accessible right where we think -- their least accessible where poverty is hired to give us an example of job training how that program was out of reach for some americans. >> it's an interesting issue that you pick up john kerry because the demands on job training providers are unique. not going to have to connect to low skill, low-wage jobseekers,

which tend to be concentrated in central city areas, but also increasing in suburban areas. they have to have access to stakeholders and thunders. they also have have access to employers and jobs. so that by not one location that's going to meet all those needs. if you're close to stakeholders you might not be in close to employers, if you're close to clients you might not be close to where the jobs are located. those providers face of the difficult challenge for and ultimately and make some of the programs work well they have to be located at the outward jobs were jobs are located where employment opportunities currently is concentrated. that means it's difficult to get to those programs for populations that live in the inner city that are isolated from public transportation, may not have access to an automobile. but the mismatches i described describe in the book occur across a number of different services categories spent want another one of those services categories and an example? >> food pantries or

organizations that provide emergency food assistance. you would expect these to be located close to low income populations. and they are. it's just that in this case is the demand for services is so great that it is in great access necessary. for instance, if you're living next door to the food pantry that serves 100 people, but there's demand for help by 10,000 people live in your neighborhood, that may not be true access compared to a setting where there may be 100, or 500 people. so in central city commits even though there are food pantries, they are not resourced to meet the needs of the threat and communities. >> what did you find was the reason for this? >> one of the interesting things about the way that we provide assistance today is social service programs are not authorized by single federal program or block grant. instead they're funded for a

variety of different grants and programs at the federal and state level as well as the local. nate roberts is from nonprofit organizations and other charitable foundations or philanthropies. and because they're so may different revenue sources, it's emerged over time any more piecemeal or patchwork fashion, and has created a standing one have someplace and not not in others. if you're a social service agency you have many demands on what drives, which can afford, where you can hire or recruit staff, where you can achieve economies of scale, where you will have stakeholders or and those who might help you raise fund. you might have a particular commitment to a certain community or any. and all those things factor in the where organizations low-key. but in the and there's a lot of evidence in the book, and this is true across three different organizations with the, chicago, los angeles and washington, d.c., that high poverty areas tend not to have adequate access for as much

access to social service programs as low poverty varies. there's not one reason. it's a combination but my sense is that in many communities it's hard to find suitable office space but it's hard to recruit staff to work in some of the highest poverty neighborhoods. and also for and i think a lot of organizations prefer to locate downtown or near corridors of power perhaps where they can connect with foundations and fundraisers. that's important if they're going to be a growing concern but it has unintended consequences. as the farther away you are free program it's it's hard to participate. >> so what's the solution? >> well, in this economic environment it's tough to think about solutions. oftentimes when we talk about mismatches in social service programs where we talk about the lack of adequate provision, safety assistance, our gut instinct is to say we should spend more money, government should spend more money, we should spend more public funds. in this environment it's not viable and that environment was apparent on the horizon when i

finish the book. so we have to think of a stretch to maximize the funding that we do provide an help us to connect people to assistance that already exists. the one goal might be to hold the line or maintain public spending levels as best we can. another might be to the people connect to existing sources of support or help narrow some of the divide them in the mismatches through partnerships with faith based organizations or other all decisions that may be trusted, connect people to know. i think another critical element to improving we deliver social services is for americans to increase their private support to all the organizations we interviewed received some money from private individuals or private donations. it's just that we don't give enough. if americans were able to step up their philanthropy, even in hard economic times, these organizations may be open sides,

open new programs that would help reduce some of these mismatches. the strength of the safety net is going to be on our private commitment to the safety net because that will translate into dollars for organizations and also greater public support down the road. >> arthur brooks, head of aei, has endorsed the book. what's your relationship with aei or with arthur brooks? >> i don't have any formal relationship with aei. he has been a friend and mentor of mine for many years. one of the nice things about this book is that it's concerned about issues of poverty. and how we help poor people. what i want to do is write a book that would not disconnect to academic audiences but connect to a broader array of individuals and organizations that working as a big many of those are nonprofit, faith-based organizations. arthur is an expert on the nonprofit sector and understands how critical that sector is to the work we do. he has provided inside the insight, suggestions.

>> you're a professor at the university of chicago. what department? >> i'm in the school of social service which celebrate its hundred year a year ago. it's a school social work. we trained thousands of students to be practitioners and counselors at one serve millions of americans over the course of all their careers. i teach courses on the history of the welfare state but i also teach courses on poverty and this thing i'm taking a new course for nonprofit and social innovation which i will try to connect students to some emerging strategies and techniques for agree more ineffective programs and organizations in this current economic environment. >> what drew you to the social service sector? >> an interesting question. when i was in college my dad lost his job, and he didn't have a college degree. it was hard for them to find work and i was at a point when i was trying to think about what i

wanted to do. i took a class and social welfare policy from a clinical science professor at the university of minnesota. and the content connected with me and i saw way i could take what i was interested in academically and translate into things that might matter to real people, people like my dad. it's been a privilege to be able to study something that not only is interesting, not only contributed to policy, but has social good in the long-term. >> who designed the cover of the book and why is it the to? >> it's an interesting design. i get all the credit to yield university press. they are graphic designers came up with it. the block title is a little bit off the page, kind of symbolizing how out of reach social assistance has become for many working poor americans. professor scott allard is the author of "out of reach: place, poverty, and the new american welfare state." he joins booktv at the university of chicago. >> we ask what are you reading this summer?

here's what you have to say. >> send us a tweet at booktv using hash tag summer reading to let us know what you plan on reading this summer. you can e-mail us, booktv@c-span.org. next martin marty appear