and he never showed up for work before nan. arthur preferred a life of leisure. he liked signed crows, old-line, late dinner parties and he was merely a springiness conkling. in fact, he then missed his birthday back a year to appear more useful. even within the republican party, arthur's nomination was considered ridiculous burlesque. after the election, arthur continued to make it clear where his loyalties lay. he went on location can even lead to 10 for a in d.c. and he took every opportunity to publicly criticize the

president. and then, suddenly, everything changed. after garfield was shot, arthur made a transformation so stunning and complete that no one could leave it. the entire country was horrified by the fact that chester arthur might be president. but unlike conkling, arthur was vacant and grief stricken. the last thing he wanted was for garfield to die. he hid himself from public view and refused even to go to washington for fear would look like he was waiting in the wings and a cut himself off from conkling. finally, after turning his back on the man who had made him come arthur found moral strength in the most unlikely of places. the letter of a young invalid one man named julius and. fans believed in art fair when one else did, when he didn't

even believe in himself. after the shooting, sand wrote to arthur, if the spark of true mobility in you now is the occasion to let it shine. faith in your better nature forces me to write to you, but not to ask you to resign. it is more difficult and brave, reform. enter resumes that, not least of all, arthur's come a day. he changed likely and try to be the president garfield would've been had he lived. he became an honest and respected leader and never forgot julius fans. not only did he keep our letters come he wrote her back and even went to visit her. one day after sunday dinner, santa sutter brothers house and a highly polished carriage pulled up in front of the house. antisense astonishment, president arthur stepped out. yet come to thank her in person

for her help. the reason arthur became president was not because it not mr. conkling's political maneuvering, but the ambition, ignorance and dangerous area can of the man who could sound control of garfield's medical care. dr. dr. willard bliss. that's right, his first name was dr. his parents had named him.there. [laughter] bliss was a well-known surgeon with a profitable practice. yet even been with the dr. z lincoln's bedside, but yet far from a sterling reputation. he had enthusiastically sold something called an drongo, which was supposed to cure cancer,, all serious, blood diseases, you name it. let's had even been disgraced for taking bribes and he had

spent a small amount of time in prison. robert todd lincoln was garfield secretary of war saffer bliss after the shooting, i saw in this national tragedy a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for fame and power. he immediately took charge of the president's medical care, even though no one had given him the authority. he just took it. he dismissed the other.there's been completely isolated garfield in a sick room in the white house. he wouldn't even let him see his secretary of state. and what happened in that room, inside the white house, is nothing short of horrifying. last and assertions he had helped to pick him unsterilized fingers and instruments and garfield's back again and again, day after day, searching for the bullet. the last thing he wanted was for garfield to die.

he had to much at stake, but it's an arrogance and endurance were slowly and excruciatingly killing the president. the only hope for garfield was to find the bullet and endless search, but this is 14 years before the invention of the medical x-ray. what happened next is nothing short of incredible. only the most brazen novelist would make it out. none other than alexander graham bell stepped forward to help. bell, a young restless genius had invented the telephone five years earlier, when he was only 29 years old. 1881 from the telephone had earned him some money and a lot of fame, but he wanted nothing to do with the come to me that a grown up around it. he said it was hateful to him at all times and that it fettered and as an inventor.

even in the business for the lawsuits against the telephone. there were 600 lawsuits against 10, five of which went to the supreme court. finally, bell had enough. he said it thickens the telephone and quit the bell telephone company. they'll just wanted to help people. he had lost most of his brothers to tuberculosis before he was 24 years old. both his wife and his mother were dead and he knew he could make life better for people, and maybe even save lives. but he worked so hard that his parents and his wife were terrified that he would literally worked himself to death. when he was working, he wouldn't stop to eat or rest. his only rest there was play the piano deep into the night. but even then, he played with such an intensity that his mother who taught him to play called it musical theater.

when garfield was shot, they'll turn his life upside down to help him. it sickened him to think of garfield's doctors blindly searching for the bullet. science, he thought, should be able to do better than that. i'll abandoned everything he was doing and spend day and night inventing something called an induction balance, which was basically a metal detector that he had got to the telephone receiver. and which he slowly ran over the president's body, listening for a tall cell bus and i would tell him where the bullet was lodged. in the end, dell and science were defeated, but not because the invention didn't work. it did work. in fact, it went on to save countless lives before the invention of the medical x-ray. alexander graham bell was defeated by comparing come ambition ignorance of the president that not yours.

if there began my research for this but, the question that coming to me was, how could this have happened? what i found was, first of all, the presidency in 1881 was very different from the presidency today. first of all, secret service. this is 16 years after the assassination of abraham lincoln and there's still no secret service protection for the presidency. garfield had only has 24-year-old private secretary and an aging policeman. not only was the president not protected from the public, but he is expected to interact with them, one-on-one, face-to-face on a daily basis. you have to remember that this is the height of the spoils system and many americans believe that they were entitled to government jobs, even if they had no training or credentials for them. more than that, they insisted on

making their case directly to the president himself. garfield was forced to meet with office seekers from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. every day and the situation made him desperate. he longed for a time to work and think and he wondered why anyone would ever want to be president. but while he found office seekers tiresome, even maddening, he never considered them to be dangerous. he said the fascination can no more be desired against than death by lightning and it's best not to worry about either. he walked all around the city by himself all the time. in fact, one night he left the white house. he walked down the street to the secretary of state's house. they walked on together through the streets of washington with guiteau following the entire way holding a loaded gun.

by that time, guiteau had been stuck in the present for weeks. even thought into church and considered shooting him in church. finally, he made his decision. the president he knew would be a baltimore and potomac train station in washington d.c. on the morning of july 2nd, 1881 and a transfer would waiting. the moment guiteau walked into the station that morning, guiteau stepped into the shadows and shot him twice. the first bullet hit the president and they are. a second doctor is back. by an incredible book, he did not kill garfield. he only wanted him. but all of that torture is back and had a spinal cord and didn't hit any vital organs. today, he would've spent a few nights in the hospital. even if he'd just been left alone, he almost certainly would've survived. unfortunately for garfield and the nation, and dr. bliss

stepped in. this took advantage of this fear in the chaos to consume control of garfield's medical care. but he was not only ambitious, yet here to the most traditional medical methods of the time. bliss gave garfield a gunshot that tim, rich foods and alcohol. he took great satisfaction in what he called the healthy pause from the infected moons and avoided any treatment he considered to be new and radical, including antisepsis. the renowned or surgeon, joseph lister, the prevention of infection by destroying germs 16 years earlier. the death rate in his surgical war had plummeted and he had traveled all around come the

baking.thursday sterilize their hands and their instruments. and warning them that if they didn't, they ran the very real risk of killing the patient. 1881, antisepsis was widely accepted in europe, but the most experienced and respected doctors in the united states still dismissed it as useless, even dangerous. some still didn't even really believe in germs. they laughingly referred to them as invisible turns and they certainly didn't want to go to all the trouble that antisepsis required to kill them. they took great pride in what they called the good old surgical stink. they would not change or washed their surgical fee brands because they believe that the more blood and encrusted on them, the more experienced it showed. even those who tried antisepsis had little success for a reason that today seem painfully clear. they would sterilize their knives, but if they drop in

during surgery, david just pick them up and continue using them. if they needed those of their hands during surgery, they would hold the knife in their teeth and then use it. even alexander graham bell could not raise the infection coursing through garfield's body. the story, however, doesn't end there. garfield's death brought about tremendous changes. changes in madison and politics in the fabric of our nation. as soon as garfield's autopsy was released, the american people understood that their president didn't have to die and they understood why he did. list was publicly disgraced and antisepsis was the top hit across the country. americans turned their rage and their grief on the political system that encouraged a man man like guiteau. chester arthur himself who owed his entire career to patronage

find the panel tonight which was the end of the oil system. his death also prompted country together in a way not seen since the war. lincoln's assassination had only deepened the divide, but garfield had been the first president who was except to type this out since the civil war. he was accepted as a leader of the whole country, north and south, immigrants and pioneer, freed man and some slaveowner. his death was their laws and their common grief brought them together. above all, garfield's death changed the presidency itself. you could argue that this really marked the end of the idealistic or perhaps naïve concept of the president of meeting with office seekers, personally making appointments at every level of government. it was obviously an unworkable

system for many reasons. it was open to correction, completely inefficient and purse really dangerous. they would never have worked as the united states grew into a major world power. and it is good that it can't. but at the same time, these changes also make it almost impossible to ever again a lack someone like garfield. the presidency today is not about a single person, but about a large, complex institution. the president may be our greatest political celebrity, that is personal power is bounded by then filtered through many layers. he is surrounded by elaborate security. his contact with the public is carefully controlled and he operates in this bubble of secret service officers, high officials and the press. it is very unlikely that would have been to garfield could happen today.

by the same token, if it even if we could find someone like garfield, we can elect him. the presidency is too big and too distant for americans to be with you choose someone who isn't even trying to be elected. it seems to be open only to people who are willing to sacrifice almost anything to become president. we have hopefully outgrown the day when and not and can just walk into the oval office and incompetent.irk seize control of the white house for nearly three, murder in the president in the process. but we likely have always thought the day when americans could recognize the promise of a fine, honest man. a man with no financial support, no political regime, nothing but the strength of his own words and ideas and in the shining moment of democracy they can our

leader. thank you. [applause] happy to take questions. >> a favor and ask a question, please approach and speak into the microphone. thank you. >> marvelous presentation. were there any among garfield's family, friends or subordinates who chant and ballast machine over lister's methods? if so, how did that play out? >> well, bell himself offered help. he'd put the bell telephone company and had opened a small laboratory in d.c. as soon as the president was

shot, he knew he could help him and offered his help. and by that time, although his public faith was that everything was going great, the president doing very well, he had become desperate so he accepted bell's help. and interestingly, although as i said really the most respected, most experienced in the united states dismissed his methods. there's some doctors who had been studying his methods in europe and who watched this with growing horror, but didn't feel that they could stand that to these well-known.there's. there was, i'd probably say -- again by the way born and raised in ohio in, but i live in kansas now. there is a doctor from kansas who wrote to the creation of garfield's wife and told her, don't let them probe the one. make sure they sterilize everything. i just never got through to

bless who ran things exactly as you wish. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. i don't mean to get you off the track, but i'm thinking that garfield played a very significant role in the 1876 election and the commission that actually elected the president. can you tell me a little bit about that? >> is a very controversial election which pays and was given the presidency. i am not sure, to be honest, exactly how much of a role garfield played and not. but it was interesting and not everyone was very, very closely watching the election of 1880 because of this and also because it was such a stunning nomination for garfield as the republican convention. so this election was closely watched really by everyone except for garfield who is very happily here with his family, and doing experiments with oil and with pleased he was a nasty

campaign, which was unseemly as they find. thank you. >> thank you. i find fascinating favorite great presidents presidents, lincoln garfield and mckinley were all kindly towards the african-american and all assassinated. our calendar this year is the same as 1881 and he was on this date on a thursday and tomorrow that garfield's body lay in state in the nation's capital. ever just thank you for coming here on this day to her hometown. >> my honor. thank you. [applause] >> hi, what do you think about the fact that garfield quit being a general while the civil war was still raging to go back into politics? what is your response that garfield the politician? >> well, garfield didn't want to. abraham lincoln asked him to come back. he needed him back in congress citing the site link in hand and

garfield understood that. it was difficult for him. he loved his regiment, which was many of whom were made-up friend boys from the western correction is it too. so is decision and he felt very passionately about the civil war, not only in keeping the country together and bringing back abolition, he was a fierce abolitionist and was a national hero because of his work on the civil war. >> thank you for image for an excellent presentation. toward the end come you said in the very last paragraph that dr. bliss was murdering the president. you don't have any malice to have it all, that letter in confidence. wal-mart question, a little about your background. i'm curious to know how you got interest in a subject like this. >> well, and i will just say, the last thing bush wanted was for garfield to die.

you know, he wrote a letter to friends on white house stationery saying i can't afford to have him die, underlining each word. he was desperate. he worked night and day. he lost his house, lost his is. but he was incredibly arrogant. he dismissed all the other.there is than he was woefully ignorant. he knew about antisepsis. and so, you know, you have to judge him on that as well. another question is how i got in? to be honest, i didn't even know i grew up in ohio know much about garfield beyond the fact he had been assassinated. i wasn't necessarily and interested in writing about another president, but as interested in science and was researching alexander graham kolb and stumbled upon this story after garfield was shot. i was done because first of all i'd never heard this story.

secondly, i couldn't understand why bell, who really was at the height of his fame and his power would turn his life upside down to do this. they mean, he had a family in boston. his wife and children -- his wife is pregnant and they've been planning on going to maine because it was incredibly hot and he had just left them and spent all this time, night and day working on this. it made me wonder, why would he do that and what was garfield by? when i start your research garfield, i was just completely kept debated and i knew i had to tell the story. >> hi. >> good to see you. >> undergone the same theme. i know you are from a small town in ohio and our product of public education. how are we aspire to be a raider? >> is a good question. i didn't ever think i would be a

writer. as a reader. i was a voracious reader. i thought i was probably going to teach. and i got an undergraduate masters degree in literature and thought i was going to get my phd. but to be honest, i hated literary criticism. i realize that i really wanted to write. so really it was a process. you know, it wasn't all overnight. it was little by little. i got my masters at taylor in a move thome, moved in with my parents, literally open the yellow pages college every publisher in town and just had all of these little magazine jobs here. search for a magazine for veterinarians and never even had a pet. i knew nothing. and finally got my dream job when i was 28 years old, working at "national geographic." as a researcher the first year, but they have this terrific

blind test for a writing position on the magazine and i applied along with 300 other people and i got the job. and it is the best thing that ever happened to me after that point and i did that for six years until i got the idea from a first vote. it's been a dream and it's been wonderful. hi. >> when the doctor was working on garfield, why didn't mr. garfield to the.here's to stop working on garfield? >> is a wonderful question. you know, it was a time of chaos and confusion and fear and bullets came forward very competently and wrote a letter to the art and treat other doctors and the president and i thank you for your help and concerned, but your efforts will be necessary any longer, even though garfield and the khrushchev had never given him that authority. so the preshow, even though most

doctors know about antisepsis, she didn't really understand what was happening, but she did keep on her.her. she had a female doctor, which was very very bad time, they called mr. dr. who they were. the doctor at singh refused to go away when bliss dismissed to create annoyance that said you can stay, not as a.there, only as a nurse. but she stated she did what she could. >> what time are you from and cannot find the book in the library by now? >> that's a great question. i was originally born in marion, ohio and grew up in lexington, ohio, which is very close to mansfield. and i think that the book is probably the libraries by now, yeah. thank you for asking. i hope you read it.

>> what a delight to be a not there and if you're going to write a next up, what is it going to be about? >> is really, really fun to be a not there. i would recommend highly. the best part for me is doing the research because you get to do all these incredible things. when i wrote my first book, it was about the river in amazon that theodore roosevelt went down. i got to go into that river that was so incredibly remote. i heard a pilot in small plane and flew for hours over unbroken jungle from horizon to horizon and i met this isolated group whose parents and grandparents had followed him and they remembered it and they remembered all these stories. so you get these incredible experience is. researching this book was interesting. researching the river of doubt was a difficult logistically.

this is difficult emotionally because i became very attached to garfield. i really cared about him. and it is difficult to see what was happening. i kept wanting to yell over the span of 130 years, stop. somebody stop these men. by reading his latest diary can i redeem children's diaries, you know, saying there's a section of garfield's fine and the national museum that was used during the trial. also, remains of charles guiteau in h.r. with the remains of john wilkes booth. yeah, there is actually -- there is a jar, pieces of guiteau's brain center on the country after he was executed to study and see if he could see any physical evidence of an entity. so anyway, it's a very interesting job. and a real privilege to be able to do this.

yes, i am working on a next book. i can't get into details about it because it's really early, but it's going to be about winston churchill. thank you for your question. >> i remember hearing about the story of alexander graham bell and what he was doing and i heard that his thing that he did for the president did work, but when off all the time. seems like the bow was all over the place. but it worked because it is picking up the metal bread springs underneath the president and that is why they had a hard time finding the bullet. is there any truth to that story? >> that's one of the reasons. it's not astonishing? he actually asked them if the president because he was there at that time to have masters of metal springs in it. they said no and in fact he was. so obviously that's going to affect the metal chair. the other reason i didn't find

wallet is that he believed in had publicly stated that the bullet was on the president's right side and he would only let l. rend the induction balance over the president's right side in the locus on the left. >> wow. and the other one is i was curious about the old cliché, ignorance is bliss. does this work it comes from? [laughter] >> i had that in the book. that's very perceptive of you. so after the autopsy results and bliss is disgrace in newspapers in the medical journal, one of the doctors says, ignorance is bliss, but it comes from a poem in the 1700s. [laughter] very apropos unfortunately. okay. >> did you read any fiction

books? >> now, haven't written fiction. fiction and nonfiction writing is very different. and i read a lot of fiction and i love it and i've gone to a lot of talks by fiction writers and i always marvel at myself because they will say, what is your process like? they say well, i sort of let this story lead me and i kind of followed by cared to her and to me that's a nightmare. and now, i know exactly -- my processes they spend three years writing a book and a fourth tier is doing foundational research. the entire second year is spent going through the research and outlining and outlining. it's really important. it will help than it saves you a lot of pain, believe me. and i just work on structure for an entire year and only then do i start writing. at the route i will find holes in my research and go back in more, which i love.

>> best of my says. [laughter] >> she's right. she's right. you can't skip the outline, sorry. >> i would just like to know what is the term political machine means? >> well, so this is a time of machine politics those incredibly, incredibly corrupt and power mongering. so rasco can't really was the sort of pinnacle example of that kind of corruption. i'm sure you've heard of past week and stuff, that really in the gilded age and that comes from. it was just a time of rampant corruption. bullying and the spoil system. and so, things obviously are not perfect now if you compare them to that time were a lot better off. >> when you do your research and when you are able to use like the diaries and the letters and

stuff like that, how do you go about obtaining not? is that they're for the public ordeal to get permission from the family? >> a lot of garfield's papers, most of his papers in the presidential papers at the library of congress. anyone can see them. you just get a drivers license. you go in and get a i.d. card. i will say they are very, very strict with their rules, which they have is they should be. i mean, these are national treasures. but for instance, i give you a story here. i am a good person i very carefully follow the rules, but you're only allowed to have one card at a time. you cannot say i've been founded as time. only one bid on your desk at 110 and one folder added that pin. so i'm following all the rules and i open a folder and there's an envelope and the folder. and it's not sealed in the face of it is facing the table. insight open it up and out false

all of his hair. and i turn it and it says click for president garfield on his death made. my god, my career is over. they're going to kick me out in all never be able to -- you never know what you're going to find. so it's an adventure. >> banks. >> you mentioned lucretia garfield's letters and diaries. are those published? >> garfield kept a diary for many, many years. lucretius diaries at the back of the last volume of garfield's diary published. and then yes, there is this wonderful volume of letters between lucretia and james. they only spent five months together during the first five years of their marriage because he was either gone hiding during the civil war or he was in washington when he was in congress and she was here in

ohio. and you know, to her credit, she kept all of those letters. at the end of his life, garfield question if he would have much of a legacy because he had been president for such a brief time. but lucretia understand who he was an understood. so even though many letters are very painful because their early marriage is very difficult, she kept all of them and they are beautiful. and as brilliant as he was, she was his equal intellectually. and i would highly recommend this book. >> banks. >> i thank you for a very enjoyable evening. >> thank you so much. >> i have one question. detector that james garfield being a multitalented man, how do you rank him at the others, such as jefferson.

>> you now, to me personally and i'm obviously biased, i think had he lives, i believe he would've been one of our great presidents. i mean, it's impossible to know because he was in office for such a short time. and a great admirer of chapters then come a great admirer of lincoln. but i think -- honestly i think garfield had a mind like jefferson and a heart lake lincolns. >> i agree. thank you. >> i was wondering, is that hard-to-find research on him quiet >> you now, it's like being a detective kind of. and so, it's really fun in that way. so you just get to search and search and search. so when i began my cast a very wide net. so i looked everywhere and every place. but for the obvious places. i came to light filled several times and the college where he was a student and teacher and president.

i went to the library of congress, but then i found the new europe bar, the library of the nearby has letters from guiteau which are incredible. or just bits and pieces here and there. it's like a treasure hunt. it's a lot of fun. any other questions? >> i just have one question to add to the thing about dr. bliss. was there any government action taken against him are prosecuted? did they ever investigate his ineptness? >> they didn't. i think the country was heartbroken and enraged and focused beam on charles guiteau in his trial because he had an insanity defense in the country was terrified he would get often be sent to a file instead of being hanged. and also, bliss never admitted that he had done anything wrong.

he in fact insisted that he had given the very best medical care to the president. in fact, he handed congress a very expensive bill for his work and was outraged when congress refused to pay him. >> okay, thank you. >> via several small questions. first of all, have you ever talked to the group out of hiram college about this? >> i've done research at the college, but having spoken with any groups there. >> do you think is to make a good book for a movie? >> yes. [laughter] [applause] >> well, i think would make an excellent book -- or a movie. i can hardly wait to see it come out. my father was an ordained minister in the same church that

garfield was. and he -- i heard somebody say that he rode a horse from here over to the franklyn christian church, which is a disciples of christ church. do you know if that's true? >> i don't know that story. at the two year, but obviously i don't know. >> that's what i heard anyway. thank you very much. >> thank you, everyone. i really enjoyed it. thank you for coming out. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> could i make just one comment? >> go ahead, bob. >> as the intellect did -- as the senior member in this part of the country as a matter of fact. i trade some of those years, but that's not going to work. i want to thank you for an extraordinary undertaking.

he took on and cheat so mightily and you cumin as someone who is a ghost the past too many people who didn't even know the ghost was there. there have been things written about him and about the family in the past, but nothing begins to compare with what you've done here. so thank you very much. [applause] >> because i didn't speak and i didn't get really a window into my life, i became kind of an evil cartoon. and i didn't help myself with wearing a hat coming out of my plea that court. but i had become kind of a villain. i wanted to show people i am not an evil person. the regular person. i get a strong, but i don't have a tail, a horn.

i grew up like everybody else. >> coming up next, booktv presents "after words," an hour-long program or invite guest host to interview authors. this week, sylvia nasar and her latest book, grand pursuit: the story of economic genius. and that, best-selling author of

"a beautiful mind" takes readers to the history of economics. the city's most influential theorist and the intellectual pursuits that she believes that the people all over the world. she talks up to its managing editor of the "financial times," gillian tett. >> host: sylvia, thank you for joining me to talk about your latest book, which is absolutely fine inning covering ancient economics and the development of the economic source over the last couple hundred years. can i start by asking you why you decided to write a book about economics now quiet >> well, i didn't decide now. i decided about 10 years ago. but now it's actually a great time because when things are going really well, people

outside the economic profession tend not to be as interested in economics. and since this book is really aimed at people where i used to be, which is someone who read novels, that some -- knowing what is happening in the world, this is a good moment. it's also because of the financial crisis and the worst recession in the united state since the 30s. it's also really important time to sort out put things in dave, to take a longer-term to. and of course, writing about the birth of modern economics in the middle of the great fit taurean boom is a chance to do that.

and i learned -- first of all, i don't have a phd in economics. i dropped dead of a phd program. but i felt like i really learned learned -- i really learned about economics in different ways writing this the because economics is so history bound, okay? is so driven. people don't set out to become an economist of it is set out to become a ballet dance or pms. then i want to be a physicist or a mathematician. and something that's happening makes the action go to economic issues and that's how people and books are drawn in. they go there because that is where the action as and that is

where they can decide what's going on. >> one thing that fascinates me is people think economics is about numbers, complex computer calculations and quite abstract ideas. and what you say in this book to his stories of people, why do they do that? it was an unusual typea, was in a? >> i think because my background is in literature, so i came everything through novel is. and when i did "a beautiful mind," i realized that for most people who aren't techies, history and biography i.e. people, is the way that makes economics accessible.

and you know, it may be that women wind up liking this book better than men who read -- who read pop science, which is usually these wonderful synthetic explanation, right? and that's too abstract for me. so i wrote it the way i read and the way that i came to the subject myself. and i hope that it makes -- i know that economics affects millions of people as it always has by the way, including many of the people lake alfred marshall or john maynard keynes or beatrice webb who took it

out. and that's because the thick of science and most of us need to come to it through history and through people because that is really what the end of the day, why are people interested in economics because they are interested in getting some control over their material circumstances. >> host: that's a very interesting game. during the ensuing possession, many people got very angry when economic economists are doing well. they didn't see this coming in 2008. they didn't want anyone to fix them. essentially what your argument in the book is actually a story of great hope arising after the economic recession.

can you explain that? >> well, part of it is lucky not to look at longer-term. and it turns out that if you think about it, at the peak of the -- or the death of the online recession in the united states per capita income, personal income, which is -- or in per capita, were higher than in any era than in any era than in any era chair. they just don't feel that way. >> and chair. they just don't feel that way. >> and 30% higher than in 1990. so, they sure didn't because for the very simple reason that a 10 of the workforce at work which

made everyone else feel i could be next. so expectations have been cranked up for material wealth, but in some ways they were shocked by the environment around them. so it is nsa -- a disparity between the long-term trend, which is for how you are and relate semantically higher levels of living standards and the periodic crises that, you know, make everybody feel very insecure. >> receptor marginal symbol point, which the advent of the economic recession. society couldn't actually measure the world around it in didn't think he could control it for the well-being. just go right, i mean come on jane austin was a life around 18

to, 910 save humanity was destitute. and matter terms, that would be like 90% of world population living on the equivalent of a dollar a day. not only was she meant and meant to be poor, but in jane austen's time, which of course say. already a tremendous opulence for her society comment that you have largely people who are not really poor, but also fatalistic. there's a sense that the world was the way it was and no one could measure it or even change it. >> guest: yeah, that was the point. not only were nine parts of

humanity condemned to dredge their way through short and miserable lives, but no one died even the most liberal, enlightened radical individuals sought that this has anything except the human condition. but then started in the 19th century he would say maybe he does say vilas, so we can change it. and 50 years later you have charles dickens rating the christmas carol, which is an attack on that kind of fatalism. so what was the difference? well, in the middle of the 19th century, and a minor economic miracle begins. what does that mean? it means that for 2000 years the

average human being lived like a roman slave in material conditions that comparable to livestock lived in one room, had with a lot of other people and animals could read, no medical care, a bad and inadequate food, et cetera. and by the time that dickens comes along and the so-called hundred 40s commentate jan's is writing about another possibility. in other words, an economy that is so abundant, so project to the bad old, you know, life sentence of most people is no longer necessary.

>> but one of the things that changed was a move away from this invasion of the inevitability when populations got bigger, results got exhausted. people began to appreciate the fact you could actually increase the resources they becoming more days. >> guest: well, what happened days that you never before had a sustained rise in productivity. and for the benefit of people who are listening to us, but it videos just her worker. so when -- what it means is if a country has high productivity, it means that they are taking the same resources, the same human beings, as the natural resources, but accomplishing a

lot more, okay? and productivity naturally determine how much is available for consumption. so it is the determinant of wages and of living standards. and for 2000 years, through the rise and fall of great empires, the romance, cheney chinese, ottoman, arabic, all of which had made great invention, great discoveries, great artistic achievement. none of that -- okay none of that human invention -- of that progress in science editor changed the way the average person lived. and then from the middle of the 19th century, right about the time that marx and engels say

that what you can expect is just increasing misery from then on until now use had a 10 fold increase in the standard of living around the world. this is the world average, including the tourist as well as the richest countries. so this is some pain -- this is not coming in now, a few good years. this was a complete takeoff from what had been the human condition. and you know, small says. , which said that, you know, a few good years with rising wages would simply result in earlier marriages and more children and therefore a return to subsistence actually was a brilliant description of what had happened for a reported

history until a few decades after his death. >> and then of course people realized it is possible to increase the pie. >> yes. you know, i thought a lot about, okay, so why is the first society on earth, england, the first society on earth to have a common myth, q&a verizon productivity and average living standards. why is it torian and goodness symbol of the horrors of the industrial revolution? in other words, why do most people who learned about it see it at a period of retrogression? and night in for what i concluded is that once you acknowledge -- once you imagine that mankind could control its material serving, add them

poverty became a problem instead of just an inevitable -- postcode inevitability. when people begin to realize that policy could actually be controlled, then it became incumbent on the government to think about ways of fun and not in trying to alleviate it. and of course, that began to feed on the first ideas of the welfare state, which we take for granted now. but back in the 19th century, they are really very noble, what they? >> guest: that's right. and this is another area where my preconceptions were really overturned because i had always thought that the wealthier state was either the invention of new dealers around fdr in the great depression or else the 1945

government after world war ii. lo and behold a product of disastrous times an advanced into the 20th century. lo and behold it turned out that the idea of the welfare state in the first six events in the welfare state were products of this it taurean boom before world war i and the invention of a woman. not that this is one of the most fascinating topics of the book. i don't think this woman is at all well known, but let alone outside the economic recession. tell me about the woman? >> guest: so, beatrice webb who was born beatrix potter was a rich, beautiful heiress,

daughter of a railroad magnate and she had eight sisters. they are married rich powerful and influential men. but beatrice was an odd and lonely child who had other ideas for herself. it turned out that her mother had written a novel, had been an activist in the pre-trade campaign of the 1840s. ..

father never really reciprocated the affections, and it was on top of not knowing should i forge my own career as these middle class women were

doing in the circumstances become social workers and writers but they weren't really sure of where she wanted to end up in or should i mary he kind of rejected her and, you know, it looks like that her father got killed and she had to care for him. she was in so many ways it highest -- ebitda mize. i don't know if you read portrait of a lady, but she epitomized the first generation of women who had enough of a choice that one could actually talk about what is she going to do with her life and it might not be the conventional. in the end, beatrice was very

lucky because she married a short not very handsome but very smart socialist who was best friends. she went from being a total market purist disciple to the point of view that was actually becoming very popular in england which is one of social reform, and she became involved and she focused on the government's role in preventing not only he alleviating but preventing poverty, and you know, reading

her book she wrote a book called poverty and destitution and which is an analysis of poverty in sort of 1880s, that period and i think people should read it today. she was sad that time until her death in 1940 she was one of the most famous women in england. she was considered the first major female economist even though today we would think of her as a sociologist. she acted in not only the cbnc but the labor party, and nobody knows who she is. that book is a brilliant analysis of poverty in the sense that it makes it clear that there are many -- in contrast to say marks and ingalls analysis

of poverty which simplistic would be a kind word there are many reasons for poverty and that preventing poverty, you know, has to be based on understanding those reasons. and her argument for the government role it was actually very sophisticated. she picked up on something that alfred marshall has identified which is to some kind of poverty that are caused by poverty and that of course is the intergenerational. so she developed for government activism. you couldn't have called her a modern-day liberals because in many respects she was quite conservative.

but, she had the idea that winston churchill when he was a young and rising politician discovered poverty in the early 1900's she was the inventor of the think tanks and she supplied churchill and his political partner david lloyd george with a sort of policy vision that the implemented in a liberal government around 1908. steny it's a great testament to your book that you've managed to bring this to light with those little known and so the other people, some of the other characters in your book like karl marx and friedrich engels, you tell their story and try to explain how their lives

difficult ideas, too haven't you? >> i have a lot of fun with marks and ingalls because again, look, all these people that i write about, there are dozens of biographies and i am not pretending to, you know, come up with great original facts or insights, but again, i never realized that karl marx never went dark in the door of a factory to respect the was the one shocking the tell to me he stayed in his room writing and was cut off while essentially ingalls to all of the hard work. >> that's right. if he was also the world's biggest slacker because the one job he held in england which is constantly being described he

was a columnist supposedly for the new york apparel and it turned out they go through it every single one. the other thing that really blew me away is that the income which can largely from inheritance, and of course from his guardian angel put him in the top 5% of british council. so this was -- these were all kind of revelations. i'm sure that, you know -- in fact i know some scholars have

discovered these facts but never emphasized them enough to the fact you bring together the human stories and the development of ideas and try to explain how to get there you leave them into a tapestry of intellectual history through the 19th and 20th century. but i must say another character i found fascinating in your book was again lesser-known was hijacked and he's often a rather tragic life which in many ways captured europe and the 20th century. >> yes. i was very, very of the sort by hayek because he was in a generation with his cousin of young men who were, you know, who had grown up in one world and then just as they were getting ready to go to round up in this war that then destroyed

the globalist economy on which the and the -- vienna in particular depended. and also witnessed the rise of totalitarian socialism. what i find so interesting about him is that by the time he died in 1992 and i wrote an obituary for him in "the new york times," he was, you know, a great figure on the right and so was reagan and thatcher. and i was going to say it almost seemed like an ideologue but in

going over and learning about his early work, you know, a very different -- >> eager to understand the intensity of their ideological positions you understand the intensity with which the sexually experienced the early years of their life at sea there were literally ripped apart. >> and also how, you know, while hayek was really wrong about something namely that the great depression would cure itself he was also really write about other things. for example, he went to new york in 1923, studied economic forecasting which was the was the golden age. that's when people developed at and he thought you couldn't

predict the economy. and now when people say what's wrong with economists they didn't see this coming? well modern economics is not about prediction. it's about to during out how you can have a successful economy or a successful portfolio without the need to predict. that was hayek. in the 20's when extreme forms of socialism were extremely popular and of course the soviet union was just founded and was exporting revolutions, you know, he and his associates in vienna figured out the very modern reason that it couldn't work.

why? because they saw the competitive economy as an information system. so when socialism collapsed, you know, most people think that one of the main reasons was exactly what he pinpointed. >> host: one of the passages that emerged from your work that is fascinating is what they might call the dialectic. the intellectual fault goes in one direction, it goes too far. people reacted good theater direction. it was partly because people like hayek -- not a radical vision of the free-market economics and the reaction to marks and engalls that then paved the way for someone to become much more intellectual going forward so there is a role for the welfare state in trying to manage the economy.

>> guest: i was fascinated. now again, i'm sure i can't be the first person that's pointed out but after world war ii, keynes who had been at the first five peace conference at the end of 41 and had warned that haven't been able to fit the allies by neglecting economic recovery, they were courting political disaster after world war ii of course keynes was instrumental in setting up the international monetary system because if you think about it, the kind of debt crisis that we have now both after world war i and world war ii, okay, and the was one of the reasons that the

economy especially europe was frozen and the conventional wisdom was that it would reconstitute itself. okay? and keynes took the opposite view and the allies to make sure they didn't need the same mistake as after world war i. well, isaiah berlin was correctly for the very best biography of marks was stationed in the british and the sea in washington during and after the war and wind hayek had written this all the people who couldn't participate in the war effort royte books, sort of prophetic books and to the free-market

space. so hayek came over on a book tour and all these republicans were, you know, just waiting to make him their poster child when he turned around and supported the cause they need it most of all which was brentonwood. that was another thing these people are not ideologues'. and because they are champions by the right and left, you often don't hear about the positions that they took that would seem to contradict, you know, the names. >> host: it was the capitol that emerges going in different directions and it's one of the

most interesting things about this whole book is looking at it as a whole. it is a terrific read is the fact that you in the 1970's. duralast character who of course was a towering figure and in some ways tried to synthesize the intellectual. >> guest: well, other than the fact it would have been a thousand page book, the idea at the core of this book that the point that brought people to economics is the desire to put mankind in the saddle in some control of their material circumstances. the fact is that what it did is to trace that idea from london in 18400 word as it rippled

outward and by the time you get to the marxist and it comes to india that journey, that realization that it can happen anywhere, what counts is not how much resources you have for how much land, but what to do with it. that sent people, yes they make terrible mistakes and its -- but yes, they can be charged to manage their affairs. that idea had really spread around the world so we had come full circle with you like. so it seemed like a natural starting point. i mean i guess it raises a key question. where do you think the economic

profession is going now? and if he were to write an at blog or postscript who would you put an end the 1970's as the figures who have woven the next stage of the intellectual tapestry? >> guest: i think one thing that is very clear is that economics as a science, els and applied practice, as a profession is booming. you can look at any data you look at, try to get into a top graduate program in economics, good luck. you have to be absolutely at the top of your class. academic economists are pulling down very high salaries. >> host: over the right of a journalist and sure. >> guest: exactly which seems

to be doing in the opposite attraction. if you look at books, i mean last year i was invited to be on a panel that i unfortunately didn't get to go to a the american economic association. >> host: i was at that meeting. >> guest: someone told me there were 500 people there. 5,000. anyway, the number of books that economics is staggering. so this is a vibrant profession. people feel light, you know come here is an area where it's like genetics right now. why are a lot of biologists going? because that is where the action is. and economics, which by the way since the 1840's it's been repeatedly declared to be such doing fine. >> host: do you think the

problem now is precisely because it is such a draw for so many people that it might have actually promised to much in terms of the ability to control or improve the world? >> guest: i'm sure that is true because i think that all psychiatry there is no question that like irving fisher in the 1920's who was the greatest american economist of the 20th century and had the incredible insight that inflationary boom is and deflationary depressions stem from the same cause. they all promise to much so it's almost become a victim.

but that's true of all. talk to a medical researcher, that's the nature especially of course as my friends of england would say. >> host: do you think it is a cacophony of different voices that it is harder for any one single intellect to come out and if you like epitomize the age? when you look today do you take one or two people in the current decade who would you choose? >> guest: well, i would choose probably a theorist and they are, you know, any number of -- that is an area that is really vibrant. then there's the behavioral economics, the behavioral finance all the stuff that descended from daniel.

that is a very vibrant area. you know, a lot of stuff on the cusp of psychology and economics. but what i would say is the insight, the basic insight and we really need to know that to conduct our lives are probably the earlier ones, okay? >> host: although the economic profession is busy now we could go back and knock off the last 30 years. >> guest: its like medicine. the breakthrough in medicine that affects our lives are not the most advanced techniques

today, okay? so that is a humbling for thing for the economics profession today. but the other thing is s yourself how has economics gone to the new insight? it's almost because the existing model, existing theory was incomplete or downright wrong. that's how -- and i suppose, i guess i don't know enough about natural science to know whether that is typical. but both keynes and irving fisher what turned into the great depression, when then it did not write itself with

monetary policy as they thought of what they both went down to the drawing board at that is when he rode the general theory and wind fisher went on, so economics -- interest in economics now because people are looking for what was it that was missing? that is a question to leave it on. >> one last thing having written this book are you more admiring of the economic profession now or less? >> guest: much more. >> host: that is very encouraging. we of such economic turmoil and then this is a very interesting insight. thank you very much. >> guest: thank you.

we will continue our local coverage

now a discussion on the turbulent 3,000 year history of jerusalem. the book is jerusalem the biography. from politics and prose bookstore in washington, this is 55 minutes. >> thank you so much to get i apologize so much for keeping you waiting. thanks for waiting for me. i had no idea at the traffic it connecticut ave. so, let's go straight to jerusalem. i've been doing to jerusalem all my life ever since i was a little boy ever since i was a baby and ever since i've been a writer i wanted to write this book and i've been thinking of a way to write about jerusalem. as you know there are millions of books about jerusalem about the israel palestine conflict, king david, the crusade for

jesus and there are few books, only one book in print in english but is the history to this which is karen armstrong which many of you may see and that is a theological because the wonderful book but it's about the nature of god in jerusalem. i wanted to read a book that was about not just the architecture, not just of the holy theology, not just one empire after another conquering it, but the people that made jerusalem and how they built it and how it developed because after all, its people, it's family that builds the city's and jerusalem is a city that's both involved and has been created a great dramatic acts in this direction as well and it's a combination of the two things and i wanted to catch that so i looked for this book for a long time and i couldn't find it and i read others about russia. once i read about benjamin a

hero of mine a person who visited jerusalem and the book and he said when i want to read a book i write it, and so humble the following in the footsteps five slightly done the same thing here. is that malfunctioning? >> not anymore. >> good. so i set about writing this book. why is it called jerusalem a biography? well, first of all, those of you, many of you know that in the scriptures jerusalem is always described as a woman. sometimes a mistress abandoned by her lover's, sometimes a beautiful princess and scarlet silk but always a woman so that's one reason traversal has a personality like an idea that appealed to me. but also this is about the people and what i wanted to do was create a book that would

confront a very complicated ideas. after all, the names are incredibly complicated. there are babylonian famous, turkish names, english names, there are hebrew names or arabic and so on and so many civilizations the syrians often and so forth. so the book had to be readable by someone who really knew nothing about the middle east, nothing about jerusalem and didn't read history books. namely my mother. and so, that's why i designed it so that it is in very small sections of each section is a person, and it's a person who helped make the city in some way or other. and the great thing about being a writer is people that interested me and i love and i wanted to write about. and so, it is a biography, it's a collection of biographies as well. some of them may scarcely have

heard of like jesus christ or her role of the great work david ben-gurion and others are well known characters like ed leah, the travel writer, or osama the arab writer and the crusades. some of these people are people i discovered. i hadn't heard of them before and i sure many of you haven't either. but it's partly a literary book and part of that i wanted to share with you the joy of reading of jerusalem and discovering these people and maybe you will go off and read more if you read the book you will go off and read more books about jerusalem and go back to the primary source that catches your imagination. so that's why i wrote this book and why i decided to do. the great challenge of jerusalem of courses that it's both a blessing and curse of jerusalem that everybody feels that jerusalem is partly owned by

them. everybody has a vision of jerusalem even though you may be a secular person who despises religion. you will still have a view of what jerusalem may be and if you are a religious person, you have a very strong view of what jerusalem should be. and that's why the moment it's a fascinating time in history because even though washington, d.c. from london to paris many of us look upon religious people with a slightly mocking smile. we think that we portray them often in the media as borderline met. in fact, in america in the middle east and jerusalem all over the world obviously fundamentalist people which i mean people who believe the bible is fundamentally the divine word of god or the koran those people are increasing in

numbers within the states. and in jerusalem and i sure many of you have been there recently you feel this strongly now you feel that strongly the number of muslims, palestinians who are now extremely observant have increased enormously since i got to go to jerusalem as a child and through the streets of jerusalem you call to prayer and now you see people going down and praying in a way that he would never have seen 40 years ago. of course the jews are far more now in jerusalem you know about evangelism more than we do in england. from these three groups of people, jerusalem is a place for mohammed as it was for jesus is the place where when the kingdom of heaven comes judgment day the apocalypse, the second coming of

the messiah, whenever you want to call that it will happen in jerusalem. can only happen in jerusalem. it will happen somewhere else side of the golden gate. the golden gate beautiful mystical mysterious structure. actually my favorite structure injures a land that is where it is going to have been. very different scenarios but basically that's what's going to happen. so, ever increasing numbers of these people ever more politicized as you know but also in the muslim world also in iran and elsewhere in israel is ever more the center of the world. no you know that by that time it is of to the crusade the time since the early middle ages really up the preparation. you often saw mabus in which jerusalem was literally the

center of the world. you've seen those maps. there's one in the book there is a cross over the world and the center of the cross was jerusalem and the center of jerusalem in those days people believe tatars from statistical center of the world, and again, now today in a weird sort of way jerusalem is again one of the centers of the world. i've talked about the fundamentalist believe in the apocalypse and judgment day. but also, geopolitically in the middle east is the fulcrum, it is in the crosshairs of all of the great crises are the great conflicts of today. secular some versus fundamentalism. not just between the western world but also we are in strange situations no where the orthodox

jews often stone nonobservant and jews for example in jerusalem. so within the religion's themselves there is ever growing conflict. jerusalem is the central course of palestine and that in itself happens with iconic value. an iconic center of the in many of the crises that happening in the arab muslim world and that is an ever greater importance in europe, too and in america. so all these things are really being played out in jerusalem in different ways and also america and iran, very shortly to get up the cause of jerusalem they would have a jerusalem day, the elite part of the revolutionary guard they've taken of jerusalem as a way they are persians and

aryans and shia and appealing to the sunni arab who are often suspicious of them and so jerusalem is a clever way of doing this. there are so many different ways jerusalem is ever more central and it's one of them in a sense that this piles on the intensity of all of the world's troubles of all these conflicts on to the fragile stones of dressel one which is really when one means the temple mount the center of the place where does it mean when you say the holy city? it is a phrase that is frequently used on cnn and newspapers. all you really mean is this is a place where on earth this is the perfect place, the prime place where god can encounter men and men can encounter dogs and that is what the holy city means. and the place that this is these

are temples now in jerusalem, and so that had a large structure intact but led to this more considered hopes and dreams that piled on top of that and that is why many people that go to jerusalem are hugely disappointed by jerusalem and hence of the syndrome. you know what this is, the special madness peculiar to jerusalem. now in jerusalem there is a mental institution, a mental hospital which specializes in every year people were hospitalized with the sender and i've been to this place. it's one of the few places where you walk in and you see the patient that says if you say jesus several people turnaround. [laughter] and in fact, there are various levels of the centrum and they've had many names over the years, darussalam met as and

fever but it's not just a sort of silly name for what happens for jerusalem. it is a psychiatric -- recognized by psychiatrists as a genuine syndrome. what it is caused by is the disappointment. it is particularly christian pilgrims, but actually i think certainly jewish pilgrims have often suffered from it. certainly i would move them from it, too and in fact one of the bizarre characteristics of jerusalem but i think just about anyone who gets control of jerusalem stops on the syndrome, too that is every conquer has succumbed to it in some way because monotheism means if you believe in one god, one way and there for you simply can't compromise, you cannot with the

road to heaven, to the in the days come to the last judgment and that is why there is a peculiar nature of jerusalem the one city they just want to live there. they want to possess and totally. to come back to the syndrome is the disappointment where people arrive expecting a white marble city, pristine, and towers rising towards the clouds where god smiles down on the pilgrims and perfect white robes. how many of you have been to jerusalem? those that have been to jerusalem know that it is exquisite, politic, sacred, wonderful, grouping, is propelling, idiosyncratic but it is also the messiest, noisiest and angriest, most awkward, most furious, most chaotic dusty, hot, crazy city and the whole world. it's no wonder that many

pilgrims to go there suffer the jerusalem syndrome. i thought it was a bit of a joke as you probably do as i'm talking about it. but i looked it up and i found out that recently in the last ten years it has been a very scholarly work by psychiatrist in the state, israel and in england about the jerusalem syndrome and they've kind of divided up and analyze it. it's unintelligible. but at the end of it there is a section that is for idiots like me. and what it says is this might be useful for people who are leading groups to jerusalem and anybody who is going have simple things to look for in your group your group starts to display any of these characteristics than

call for the institution. but they're quite interesting. the first one is obsessional clipping of meals and toenails, finger and toe nails and the fetish keeping of the clippings. they don't see why that is. second is the cutting of hair and again, keeping the cutting. the third one is the fashioning of the rope from hotel bed linens. [laughter] the fourth one is putting on the robe and progressing to a high place. if number five is giving a sermon, preferably a sermon on the mound. [laughter] you can only write this book if you're truly obsessed and immersed in the subject. she thinks i suffered with the

book is done now, thing god. i have to say that this book is definitely the most daunting and challenging but i've never written. when i started to write a obviously the most important thing was there was no importance of letting the antiis really history of jerusalem, no point in letting the pro palestinian zionist history of these things have been done and i historian. i wanted to might as close as you can get to a history of jerusalem without bias. i should first of all tell you that is hard for me. i'm jewish and i should tell you what this means because monetary the character played a big part in the creation of jerusalem isn't totally forgotten but pretty much and his name was moses and he was my great, great uncle and he was a fascinating character. he was born in italy and came as

a child to england in the 79 these and he had a very successful financial career. he married -- he and the first rothschild to arrive and in business together. it said and i think it's been proven recently that they were quite naughty in the battle of waterloo. they had a better intelligence service than the government of, so the new when they won the battle before the press minister because that meant they could buy the stock first. so that said they made a great fortune which was mel recalled but it never had been invented yet. no he was exactly what the victorians fought a jew should

be like. he was 6-foot 4 inches, blue eyes, barrel chested, broad shoulders and he was one of those people who had great charm whenever she saw him i saw moses wanted very with a very grand old hebrew he is which by the standards of the time was great compliment. wouldn't go down so well today. but the point was stranger the time and this was the situation -- many of the leaders of britain aristocracy and the middle class or the evangelicals and they believed absolutely the return of the jews to israel to the gathering of the jewish people, the jewish jerusalem and ultimately this will accelerate both british control of the least and also the second coming

and this also coincides very much with moses he was very friendly with of the leader of these evangelicals they were very similar and windows is not a theory in the eighties and twenties went for the first time he was a very world the english gentleman who made his first fortune who was jewish but not particularly orthodox she fell in love with jerusalem he went seven times. he said when he received his knighthood from queen victoria i was much prouder to see my banner flittering in the hall than i was to receive the title from the queen of england and he became a very orthodox jew. he always traveled with his own and silver and complete paraphernalia of the orthodox jew could afford to take everything with him wherever he went into his carriage is in jerusalem and some of you may have seen that.

he went seven times which is difficult and dangerous and many people died on the road to jerusalem. he was an extraordinary character. after weigel going to jerusalem giving money to the jews that were an incredibly poor he realized that for them to have a future there they had to return to jerusalem but they also had to make their own living since the age of 60 he built the first suburb outside of the city walls. that is a fascinating thing. if you read many of the papers in europe, north america i might add that northern europe, you would believe that all of the suburbs of jerusalem that were jewish or very recent and authentic and to believe that the palestinian in the air of neighborhoods -- let the interesting things about jerusalem is in fact both of the suburbs were started in the

1860's. wanted to rebuild the first jewish one and the great palestinian families started to build their split sample was the most famous of the neighborhood. so, all of these things were built at the same time but not to restart so he brought a little bit of england to jerusalem because this wind mill didn't work for very long. fascinating and 1846 rutka was going to see is he built the wind mill but they're still to rows of them which you will have seen. he built jury classic english style of the time. the cottages are completely out of place in jerusalem but so are many things. but what they look like is a kind of fake gothic like a medieval castle and of course they look exactly like a golf

club from london suburbia will build up that time and that is the time they were built. interestingly in 1948, 47 as the battle to jerusalem began the battle for palestine began, the palestinian irregulars took possession of the gate and the walls of jerusalem and don't know if you can picture them steve got the gate here looking down and the montefiore when the mill here controlled by the british and the have a huge and as the battle started to attack the montefiore as they called it into the jewish defender is actually used these battlements as they were very useful so they said that purpose but the british were actually sort of

backing and at one point they blew off the top of the wind mill which i can't forgive them for. so that's the background and of course the was the beginning of the family connection to jerusalem. they went down through many generations. when 1917 when the british took jerusalem from a simple for the british empire by coincidence the person who made the military police chief was the nephew of moses montefiore, like mechem and his job was to run jerusalem and was very peaceful at that time. and i found in the family papers -- this book is a work of synthesis and assure the subject in a way to the archives but

there is also quite a lot of stuff in there which is new archival material and one of the things is for my family papers of the general basically no attention between the jews and arabs that point. but the big problem was stopping australian soldiers going into brussels in jerusalem and to give clear instructions this is all in the archives which for many at that time and major jeffrey of montefiore or haul out the australian bodies and put them in chuckles in prison for the night and his messages to the field marshal were actually all the same about 20 of them identical and what they

see is jerusalem inquired rampant and it was quite amusing to find that. by the way one of the interesting things about the montefiore connection was he adopted the family and i grew up that's why i went there as a child so for those of us in the family when it became a huge boar especially for the members of the family and the older members of the family, they would wear top hats and things like that. they wouldn't believe in america. there were very victorian. but any way they would call on about how wonderful moses montefiore was, he was the family st. we felt like all great victorians he had a secret life.

the next day his nephew went to his house and burned all his papers. always a bad sign. so the reason we discover many rumors about his life he was very happily married but was also clearly a typical victorian and we've discovered the age of he fathered a child so this is shocked to the altar members who are 80, 90, almost finished them off. [laughter] but i have to say that for the younger members of family biggar lot more interested in

montefiore work. that's how it became another great challenge coming from this background was to write else i said and unbiased history of jerusalem. there are so much to say about it but one of the first things is that every religion has its methodology which if you are a believer you believe is of so with a true. if you are not that some ridiculous. and so, for jews there's abraham, david, solomon who rises on a first day from arabia when a horse with wings and a human face took montefiore to jerusalem. there's no point in writing the history if you don't respect religion and without respecting

it, the history is actually meaningless anyway. so when i start to write a kind of policy for this am i policy was not to fight any religious beliefs but to embrace its. you may well want to know the facts. you'll find them in this book as far as we know in an unbiased way. when a started to write it uses my father's to the kuwaitis and said to me if you say king david doesn't exist i will disown you. just what somebody from every religion, the interesting thing about the nature and you'll see it at the book there's one just jews and palestinians. that's one of the tragedies. this book is about multiple

identities. in one sense you can read it as the greatest story ever told of a great conquerors and also read how the holiness' develops, how the identity develops, and higher of controlled power and its these things of small. so in jerusalem identity is a blur. in 1970 when they asked the mayor but they didn't call them palestinians yet and asked them if you read a bit of murphy's in the 40's he talks about postilion all the way through the book. he means jews, the jewish community of palestine so that's quite interesting. but anyway, the point is the

state families which written a lot about in the book and he unveils his nationality and says i'm quite clear about my nationality. i have three nationalities. first jerusalem, second by an arab and third to -- many people would argue in similar ways, similar complexity and that is what this book is about. it's respecting the complex identities that are different in the national these. you may not know for example but the armenian community in jerusalem speaks its own dialect which is specially and has many words that are special, unique to jerusalem. and so, at one point the serbians had a share at the judgment so this is a jury complicated -- if you took to the palestinians in jerusalem many of them are descendants from turks and the families because i've written about -- it

would become a great dinner with the arab families and i've taken trouble to go to every one of these families and find who keeps the family history in front of the family history of these men. that's something for each. so it is a family started doing it that way. it's still open every day. the have done that at least all families have family mix and that brings me back to my point. in jerusalem the mix was as powerful as the facts. you have to write both. and that's one of the peculiar characteristics as well is that many of the myths are in fact historical the wrong body what

people. there are many examples of this the biggest one is almost certainly theodore roosevelt along with millions of christian pilgrims it's almost certain historically the wrong route for jesus. but it also applies to the different sites for religion which for example the focus of great reverence no on the whole political question on the palestinian neighbor and the jews are trolleying to build new settlements, so long and so forth. this is almost the entire noblewoman in the time of the trust that all if they tell them that. they don't want to know and i say they are wrong? no. it's all reference to them. but if you want to know the historical story it is here and so on. there are many sides are

religious. people arrive in jerusalem just about all of them fought all the buildings they saw were built by king dador king solomon. and in fact virtually all of the big buildings to use your built by. the great. people say that jerusalem is really old. 300 years in the middle ages there were no laws in jerusalem. they were overwhelmingly built by the lack deutsch said. they are not very ancient at all, the contemporary of england. there are no older than england which is interesting. of course the walls around the temple itself are old and very ancient. but a great variety, there's a great variety. at jerusalem itself is talked about all the difficulties as the holy city and so on and so forth. there have been times when all of the great religions have almost forgotten jerusalem. the jews i would save least.

i would say that ever since 1780 when it was destroyed the jews have always revealed they want to return and lived that whenever they could and that wasn't always possible. for hundreds of years they were paying their debt from jerusalem. but by that time for simple the temple was a ruin and jews were banned from there. they kept it to prove the truth of jesus'' prophecy that jerusalem wouldn't rebuild and the temple would be destroyed. ..

in 1900, in 1800 the turn-of-the-century around 1800 when israeli and people, jerusalem had 1000 even within the wars it was overgrown so there have been times, hasn't been like it is today and it was really the approach of the poorly and in 1798, 1799. he invaded egypt and advanced up the coast. he hoped to restore it to the jews. he was it early zionist impact but he he never miniatures alone. that was the beginning of the return to jerusalem and which has culminated really in jerusalem central to geopolitics and so on. so, that is how i approach the

book. what time did i start talking? anyone know? 7:30 show i should stop in the second. and we can take questions if you would like. but, the challenge has been given my background, given the nature of jerusalem, given the way that it is so fought over and live the way, the two great distractions of jerusalem in 586 b.c. and the babylonians and with titus, these two great distractions were probably the most important things and making jerusalem what it is today, making it the holy city. the destruction intensified the holiness of the place. in a way jerusalem's holiness is indestructible and one of my hopes of this book is that by showing the history of all the people of jerusalem and by telling it as fairly as i can,

knew that i wouldn't be popular with everybody and in fact they knew that if i was popular, too popular with one side of the other i would have failed in my task. at first that was difficult for me to take and then i realized i had to embrace it. the first british governor of jerusalem, when he came to jerusalem he was quite popular with both sides in 1918 but then he became very unpopular with both sides, so he went to his prime minister david lloyd george and he said to him, he said to him the jews are complaining. what should i do? lloyd george quiken a flash that if either side stops complaining i will fire you. so i followed a very similar, i followed a sort of similar attitude with this book. and it's been very challenging. the early biblical period and obviously the last 50 years, i

don't quite finished in 67. 67 was the last change of possession of church lumps so that is the climax at the end of the book but it actually goes right up as you said to obama, to the arab spring, to the present time and of course the later bit is the most controversial so when i was writing i decided that i really need to get both tell us dinning authority people to read it and the israeli government to read it and i got both people to read these sections. they knew it would be published in many languages so they took trouble with it and they each gave me memoranda send corrections and so on. course both only corrected the things, they didn't mind things that were wrong. they just minded the things that were against their interest so after a while i decided i had to make my own judgments on these matters which i did. and so this book is the result. now, we don't know what is going to happen with air spring. we don't know what is going to

happen with the palestinian bid for statehood at the united nations. all the great calla facts of the world which are so founded on jerusalem which is so based on our love of jerusalem and our fascination with jerusalem which is the holy city, universal city, all of these things are unknown and it would be meant to predict. no one predicted the arab spring for example. i can see a jerusalem in 50 years that is kind of more or less shared with a peace deal. it's almost negotiated. both sides know what the terms would be under rabin, under olmert and under barak. both sides of course foster myths about the other side. the israelis for example claim, often claimed the palestinians

were invented very late and so on and so forth but the jews came first and therefore the palestinians residency for 1500 years is worthless and so on. the palestinians too heather sins. they often claim that the jewish love of jerusalem was only invented in the 1890s and the wall became wholly late in the 17th century, the 16th century and so on. so all of these, both sides, foster lies about the other. now you could make peace with m-16s. you can make peace with legal documents. you can make peace in the u.n. security council's but none of these pieces will hold until both sides recognize and respect somehow the heritage, the story, the truth of the other and in a very small way this book

contributes to that i will be happy. as i said everything is up in the air. i could also see jerusalem which is destroyed which is plumb up by some fanatic -- blown up by some fanatic. if that happens to jerusalem then you would become holier but of course it would break the hearts of the world. the one that thing we know is ultimately the day of judgment come the second coming, jesus christ will return to jerusalem. so the only thing we know for sure is that whatever else happens, it will end in jerusalem. thank you very much. [applause] >> lets do about 10 minutes of q&a with this microphone here. >> yeah, i would like to comment about king david and,.

[inaudible] primitive dwellings and all of that described in the holy books could not have existed at that time. >> this is the key question that my father was very concerned with and it's a very good question. now, just to take things step-by-step the bible of course is you know, if you believe it,, fewer fundamentalist believer in the bible is god's word you don't need to listen to this, but if you're interested in what really happened, then the bible, the bible is a source like any other historical source like any other like every source you have to ask who wrote it and when they wrote it and why they wrote it. because we don't know the answer to all that in the bible. so we have to ask what we do

know about david. the thing about david, it's like everything in jerusalem but especially david and solomon. this has become an obsessional question for both sides, and the politics has forced both sides archaeologists and historians into extreme positions. the palestinians believed anti-israeli and anti-zionist aleve they base that on king david and so on so this is why it's such a fraught subject and viciously debated in israel among the israeli archaeologists for a start. but what do we actually know essentially? well, we know that david did exist to cause an inscription found in 18 -- 1993 by israeli -- refers to israel as the house come the kingdom of

israel, the kingdom of the jewish is the house of david and this is 12150 years ago so after david's death. so we know that david was a historical character, but that is pretty much all we know. now, in the archaeology, the trouble with david, in most archaeology, what you don't find isn't held against you. you simply use what you do did you find it you understand that archaeology is really like shining a flashlight or striking a match thousands of years ago and in that moment you can sometimes find something that for some reason was left behind. so, in the city of david, the original city of jerusalem there is very little. there maybe may be one or two buildings better in exactly the david period but we also know from new finds in the city of david that there were huge

canaanite structures. there was a big canaanite stronghold 800 years before david. since it survived until today -- so we know there was a large structure there. jerusalem was much smaller than the biblical accounts suggest and it was probably just a stronghold. david's kingdom was probably less a formal kingdom, more likely a confederation of tribes. it doesn't mean it didn't exist. we know it existed. it's interesting for example the maccabean kingdom which we know existed a thousand years later was also left virtually no archaeological remnants. it's such an obsessional fascination with whether it exists with what hasn't been found. what we do know is that his there is virtually no evidence that solomon existed.

there is nothing inscribed with his name. again what we do know within 30 or 40 years with a the probable death of solomon there was a jewish temple on the site that is now the temple mount. we know because egyptian king canaan demanded the goal for the temple. we know there was a jewish kingdom there and we know there was a jewish city so i am less excited about whether king david existed or not been many people are because we know within 50 years of him, all the conditions that are so important existed, did exist. but i'm not one of these people who believes that just because there was a jewish kingdom and a thousand b.c. that this has any political, this in any way diminishes the rights for example of the palestinians who have been, or the arabs who have been in jerusalem since 638 but it is a fascinating question

nonetheless. so that was a long answer. >> i have two questions, one related to the other end something that you mentioned. you know stalin was a of alien and where he picked on people. the question is, why were the religions, if i was selling religion when i want to go to one place and point out the weaknesses of the religions that are there are rather than going somewhere else in africa or whatever? i think it was intentional that they focused on one place to build themselves up and get the attention. dari: of alien. >> i know exactly what you are saying. what you are saying is what was fascinating about jerusalem is that each religion, each new revelation that took control of jerusalem, they didn't say we are going to start from scratch. no way. the holiness in jerusalem is a

tradition and it's infectious so what they each did, the jews almost certainly built the first temple on the canaanite shrine. the christians, jesus very consciously fulfill the jewish scriptures and was a practicing and based much of his legitimacy on his study and his this fulfillment of these prophecies, so the jewish scripture rule was vital to christianity and so are the jewish sites and similarly, we don't know if he was literate or not but he certainly was very very familiar with both a the christian and the jewish scriptures on the prophets. for the muslims, king david is the profit david and so on, so moses is not a moussa. so they consciously dealt on the

jewish tradition and the christian tradition. what was he doing there? he was giving legitimacy to his religion but also he was adapting, adopting, commandeering the holiness that was already there are and that's what -- is what all the religions have done and that is why there are three religions in jerusalem. >> i want to come in and what you said. i recently read there is a lot of anti-semitism in great britain and they wouldn't put a in the parliament. you are talking about they wanted they choose do you know, get ahold of israel but yet, palestine, but yet there was his antagonism towards the jews. >> the british answer to the jews who like in many countries was ambiguous but in fact, this temporaryism which is what i was

describing with evangelists which is similar to christian evangelism today in america, was very pro-jewish. of course it was social anti-semitism as it was in america too but that was limited in a very big way. may surprise many americans. if the look of the story story of my ancestor, an italian immigrant, penniless in england, died with a country estate, friends with queen victoria and many aristocrats in many crowned heads in europe and many other banking families. they were then very wealthy and so that was easy to accept but nonetheless, it does define some of the preconceptions does it not about victoria in england and the english caste system? >> we will do the last two.

>> two quick questions. outside of the last pages of your book in the last chapters of your book, could you give me one, maximum two, books that are objective histories of israel palestine and the second question, did lawrence darrelle affect your thinking or your writings? >> well, everyone loves lawrence darrelle. of course, i love his stuff and i think he is a great man. do you like him? he came to me as you were speaking on his image and his alexandria bubble. his wonderful book and you know jerusalem, salonika, these were the great sort of cities full of many nationalities and nationalism has destroyed all of that. what was the other question? the one maximum to objective books on the palestine israeli

conflict. >> it's actually hard to find them. i'm trying to think. most of the ones i can think of i don't want to name because i regard them as unequal. i'm not saying that to promote my book. i just want to answer the question truthfully and i can't quite. i think a lot of looks that i loved as a child were very pro-zionist i can now see and so i can't answer but a lot of the modern books written are either neocon which often i regard as totally unrealistic or they are kind of essentially very anti-israeli, the opposite. that is why i write -- listen you will judge when you read the book how i've done on this and nothing is perfect. but it is actually very hard to find, very hard to find a sort of object if you on this. and so, so i can't answer your

question. is that the last question. one more question. fire way. yeah go on. >> i have a long history of loving your work and very much admire you as a thinker, is a writer and in the documentary on catherine the great. the work i am doing, and i want to show you how i honor you and what i think a few. i am doing a novel on the friendship between catherine the great and -- you with a man who could make me think in your book on stalin, what a handsome man that stalin was. so it gave me the idea that i was going to have stalin undergo a transformation, helped out by catherine the great. the question i have now and i

haven't delved into your biography yet, but i have catherine trying to fuse pantheon who says i don't know why people have this idea of me and i don't know why i have gone down in history that way and catherine is soothing him and cuddling him and in him and saying, don't worry my darling, i have asked simon sebag montefiore to write a biography of you and i know he will tell the truth. [laughter] now i have to go home tonight and look. shall i be scared? shall i drink before go home? >> i think you should definitely have a glass of wine. [laughter] that is the nicest question i have ever had. thank you very much. before we finish, i got an e-mail today, that won't quite answer your question but i love your question. it reminds me of something.

a history teacher in provincial england who wrote to me to say he had put up the picture of young starlet in a large poster over his desk and it had become first of all one young girl and then many young girls and all the girls in the school have been coming to see it as a pilgrimage and he was very a long because they all found him so handsome. and yours is the book. he wrote to me to say, what should i do? dear simon, what should i do about this problem? all the girls in the school are in love with -- so actually i would say thank you very much for that lovely question. i'm very flattered and honored and i can't wait to read your novel. >> depending on what you write, she will -- it in some way. >> ladies and gentlemen thank you very much for having me. [applause]

>> because i didn't speak and i didn't get a window into my life, i have become kind of an evil cartoon and it didn't help wearing it had coming out of my plea in court. but i have become kind of a villain and i wanted to show people i am not an evil person. i'm a regular person. i did things that were wrong, but i don't have a tailor horns. i grew up like everybody else. >> as we can on "after words" on c-span2 booktv power and corruption on capitol hill. once the most influential lobbies in washington jack abramoff was convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy in 2006. his story saturday night at 10:00 eastern.

coming up next on c-span2, the 32nd annual news and documentary emmy awards ceremony. then, from booktv, conversation on the assassination of president james garfield. than the book, grant pursued the story of economic -- we will continue our political coverage of next week's new hampshire primary on tomorrow's "washington journal." clinical reporter kevin landrigan of the national telegraph joins us. we will also talk to new hampshire congressman charlie bass and trey grayson of the harvard institute of politics. "washington journal" each morning at seven eastern on c-span.

now the annual news and documentary film m.a. award ceremony. >> some of the categories include investigative reporting, this interview and documentary. larry king was honored with a the lifetime achievement award. this event was held at lincoln center in new york in september and is about two and a half hours. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the chairman of the national academy of television arts and sciences, maliki winch as.

[applause] >> thank you very much. good evening. is like to welcome to the 32nd annual news emmy awards. the people in this room tonight represent the very best in broadcast journalism and at the national academy we wish to congratulate all the nominees for their outstanding contributions in the excellence of television. [applause] thank you. and we are especially pleased to see larry king for more than 50 years of news and entertainment and broadcasting. he has graced our homes -- [applause] he has graced our homes night after night with enormous figures and incredible amount of talent, and this year we are proud to give him them the honoré as the lifetime achievement award for the

national academy. thank you. [applause] i would also like to knowledge a couple of people who have made this event possible tonight. first of all i would like to thank the judges who judged over 1300 entries that we received this year. it is their efforts that have allowed us to celebrate the best in the brightest in our industry each year. on behalf of the awards committee i would like to thank linda and chuck are co-chairs of the awards committee. [applause] and finally i would like to thank the staff of the national academy, especially david nguyen who is the director of news and manager christine chin. so thank you to both of them. [applause] and now to lay down a few of the ground rules for this evening as

david nguyen director of our news emmys, david. [applause] >> thank you. and a couple of minutes we will begin presenting this evening semi-words. at the moment only the accountants know who the winners are. the judges fellows go directly to the counting for tabulation. here with a sealed envelopes in hand are the managing partner and his associates. [applause] in addition representing the accounts for the international academy of television arts and sciences is mr. jeff chung. [applause] and to help us present the more than 40 awards presented site where the gracious assistance of ms. martha chatman. [applause] so before we begin let's go over to a few simple ground rules. first of all for the city fortunate enough to be called to the put in our nature will

announce the name the person accepting the award as you come to the states. if for some reason you don't hear good name announcer announced or if someone else is accepting tonight please identify yourself at the podium. for those winners who are sitting in and the alchemy tonight, look for the attendant at the nearest exit door either on the left or the right and they will quickly escort you to the stage to accept your award. while you may bring as many people to the stage as you like, remember only one acceptance speech for per award and please limit your remarks to 30 seconds. after accepting the award, exit stage left for you be escorted to the pressroom for photographs so please remember identify yourself if necessary, only one speech per award and please keep your remarks to 30 seconds. and one last thing, let's all take a minute to turn off our iphones and our blackberries or any sort of small portable electronic device that makes an annoying buzzing noise while you were trying to give your acceptance speech. in other words turn off your phones. congratulations to all the nominees and good luck.

[applause] speedways welcome moderator pbs's "washington week" in senior correspondent for the pbs "newshour" gwen ifill. [applause] >> it's always great to start off, isn't it? i am pleased to be here with you tonight. i'm pleased to be with you to salute the best in our business. you may have noticed we are at a turning point in broadcast journalism. audiences increasingly get their information from everybody but us, whether it's wikipedia or google or twitter and all of that is fine, but news still needs a curator. those sources that tell you what you want to know but also what you need to no, and sources that dig deeper than 140 characters

will allow. fortunately there is still much amazing work being done in our business and i get to begin tonight's ceremony by celebrating the best of the best in investigative journalism, longform news coverage, business, art and cultural reporting, music, sound and cinematography. let's get right to it. the nominees for outstanding investigative journalism in a newsmagazine are,. >> brian ross investigates, make-a-wish swindle, 2020, abc, 21st century snake oil, 60 minutes, cbs. blackwater 61, 60 minutes. cbs, spiritually bankrupt, dan rather reports, hd net. >> and the emmy goes to, so much

fun, 60 minutes, 21st century snake oil, cbs. [applause] >> accepting the m.a., scott pelley. [applause] our hidden cameras capture one of the most outrageous cons we have ever reported. >> you can't find a surgeon in the world who doesn't support our approach. >> the 21st century snake oil salesman bilking desperate patients out of their life savings. >> we have been people out of wheelchairs. >> understand you have had patients that have stood up and walked away from wheelchairs. >> there have been patients that have improved to that extent. , the trouble is, you are a con man. [applause] that was a hanging curveball

right there. first of all thank you very much to the academy. my name is bill owens and executive editor of 60 minutes. and the people who really should be up here hopefully are making their way down from the cheap seats. [laughter] sam hornblower, david gelber and the group from the terrific investigative unit at 60 minutes, bob shadegg the editor. [applause] and scott pelley as you saw was the correspondent. we worked on this story for over a year, and investigative journalism matters to everybody in this room and it matters a lot to us at 60 minutes. thank you very much and we appreciate the honor. [applause]

>> moving right along the nominees for outstanding continuing coverage of the news story long form are. >> the quake, frontline, pbs. the wounded attuned, frontline, pbs. war done gone, hbo documentary films, hbo. the village called versailles, independent lens, pbs. restrepo, afghan outposts, "national geographic" channel. [applause] >> and the emmy goes to restrepo. afghan outposts, "national geographic" channel. [applause] >> accepting the emmy, sebastian junger, director and producer.

>> hi, i'm sebastian junger. this is judith hetherington, the mother of my colleague, tim hetherington. [background sounds] [applause] >> by film that part. it always disturbs me so that is why i was trying to talk over it. there are so many people to thank, but foremost in my mind is the gaping absence appear on the stage of my friend, colleague and brother, tim hetherington.

[applause] we are really lucky to have his mother, judith, up here on stage and his wonderful father, alastair, over there. [applause] i just want to briefly say, he was killed in misrata libya on april 20. he devoted his life to chronicling the human costs of war. he became part of that cost five and a half months ago and it's just a real honor to be up here accepting this award for myself, for tim and also for the men of the second platoon battle company who allowed us into their lives for a year. i love them all. i love tim and really i'm going to miss him tremendously.

thank you. [applause] >> and the nominees for outstanding business and economic reporting in a newsmagazine are. >> brazil, 60 minutes. cbs, davos. 60 minutes, cbs, dan rather reports, hd net. the mysterious case of ken and chu, dan rather reports. hd net. >> and the winner for outstanding business and economic reporting in a newsmagazine, the emmy goes to dan rather reports, the mysterious case of kevin chu, it hd net. [applause]

>> accepting the emmy, dan rather. [applause] >> you is hoping to move large quantities of expensive medicines. the problem was his pills were fake. >> mr. chu was unlike any other person if we had encountered. >> between the fake drugs he had sold undercover agents and the details he revealed on tape, they had what they needed and moved in to make an arrest. he is currently serving his sentence in big spring, texas and he has been named in an indictment in the united kingdom. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you very much. i would like to extend my thanks to the academy and to the judges and also a salute to others who are nominated in this categorycategory, any one of these pieces would have been a deserving winner. our executive producer wayne nelson who refuse to come up here to my right, elliott

elliott kershner, the senior producer, kelly busby who is here somewhere. , but, kelly. [applause] kelly will be here just a moment and that will be a delight for you. the coproducer and editor, daniel maddon, or senior editor steve tyler who is down here. kelly and daniel, thank you very much. thank you very, very much. [applause] >> the nominees for outstanding arts and culture programming are. >> smashes camera, hbo documentary films, hbo. art and copy, independent lens,

pbs. joan rivers, a piece of work, showtime. the story corps animated series, pov, pbs. soul train, the hippest trip in america, vh1 rock.. vh1. >> i can't vote for her soul train. a little late for that. having a little flashback to my childhood. the emmy goes to independent lens, art and coffee, pbs. [applause] >> accepting the emmy, doug fray, director. [applause] >> i see the system and i hate the status quo. we are changing the world and everybody respected it. >> i would make graphic statements, grabs at your heart

and grabs at your throat and make statements about how you figure life should be about. as i was trying to sell products but i size making a point. i think advertising can be and should he and at times have been revolutionary, subversive. [applause] >> wow. thank you very much. michael naito, jimmy, hope you guys come down quick. come down here. they made the movie with me. anyway i'm amazed. i want to tank a pbs so for supporting us and the one club for making, allowing me to make a film about creativity itself which is very inspiring strange journey to do. i really want to thank the people in the film who just gave up their lives in their stories and share their way of communicating which is so efficient it's amazing. i wish i could eat that way right now. mary wells, jim, cliff freeman, george lois, and wyden, david

kennedy, jeff goodby, rick silvershein, how riney and phyllis robinson, the last two who are no longer with us. this is for them and thank you so much. really really honored. [applause] kevin, kirk, peter nelson jimmy baldwin and jimmy greenway. [applause] >> the nominees for outstanding music and sound are. >> great migrations, "national geographic" channel. music by prudence, hbo documentary films, hbo. sins of my father, hbo documentary films, hbo. the matador, sundance. air war, world war ii in hd. history channel.

>> and the emmy goes to great migrations, "national geographic" channel. [applause] >> accepting the emmy, kate hopkins, sound designer. ♪ >> someone is running.

they are running. they are coming. it's your moment. come on. [applause] [applause] congratulations. [applause] >> thank you so much. i would like to thank the academy and david hammons for mixing the tracks. [inaudible] is fantastic, thank you so much. [applause] >> the nominees for outstanding cinematography, news coverage and documentaries are. >> a relentless enemy, 60 minutes, cbs.

lost mummies of new guinea, explorer, "national geographic" channel. iceland volcano eruptions, "national geographic" channel. building the great cathedrals, nova, pbs. write your soul, the horsemen coming, airshow buzz.com. >> and the emmy goes to, explorer, lost mummies of new guinea, "national geographic" channel. [applause] >> accepting the emmy, and ian kerr, director of photography. ♪ >> created about 60 years ago, this mommy is coming down to the village to be inspected and repaired by colleagues.

after the journey, it must be dried. the mummies great enemy is water. [applause] >> now assuming the "national geographic" got all their -- together we are assuming maybe someone is on their way to get this otherwise. okay, come on. i was going to take us home with me. come on. congratulations. >> i wish i had planned a speech now. i thought it was going to be bad luck. on to thank the other nominees. was a heck of a category and i think 60 minutes got shot at. i got heat stroke, that was it so congratulations.

i want to thank john rubin who was the director of the film and a good friend. and i really want to thank my wife because she wouldn't come down here but a half-hour before i came here i realized i forgot my shoes in vancouver and she found these for me. thank you carmen, i love you very much. [applause] >> and he can run in his new shoes. that is the best part. the outstanding, the nominees for outstanding cinematography nature documentaries are. >> belisle revealed, "detroit free press," great migrations, "national geographic" channel. waterworld, beneath the crust, how the earth changed history, "national geographic" channel. into the dragonslayer, animal

planet, ultimate air jaws, discovery channel. >> and the emmy goes to, great migrations, "national geographic" channel. [applause] >> accepting the emmy, john, cinematographer. ♪ ♪ >> wow. >> thank you everyone. [applause]

>> wow, we did it guys. >> i want to know that i just got handed in and my bike -- me by gwen ifill. she is awesome. seriously she is an amazing. this was an amazing collaboration between the "national geographic" and "national geographic" television. of course the academy and all of the guys here. there's a long list and i won't name everyone but we are immensely grateful and we appreciate this. none of this could be possible of course without the loving support of our families and our friends and i just want to say thank you to them. i love you angela, and i love you know and i love you been. >> i just want to say if i was a great white shark i would only eat emmy awards. thank you. [applause] >> please welcomed abc news chief investigative

correspondent, brian ross. [applause] >> thank you very much. i'm so pleased to be here at this grand evening for celebrations of the people who work in network television news scheduled to begin as the networking nick newscasts are still on the air. those who even drink can't get here until the bars close. what do you want for $500 a seat? [laughter] [applause] in fact as an investigative reporter i can't help but notice certain similarities from some of those e-mails from nigerian princes that i received. in the word comes of an emmy nomination i know i'm probably going to lose but is just too tempting not to hope anyway, maybe this time. course tonight there will be winners, the people who have skills and creativity and courage to survive and thrive no matter what the business and commercial pressures may be. it has been my great honor to

work for and with such colleagues over the last decade with both nbc and abc news. and given this platform tonight i want to take a moment of personal -- to mention for them who are very close to me and his name should never be forgotten. cameraman randy -- correspondent don harris, cameraman bob around and cameraman tim hetherington. [applause] they are forbade all too many killed on assignment as they did their jobs as journalists. we keep faith with them by putting ourselves on the line to work without fear in taking on the powerful and seeking the truth so for all of us i hope there is much more than just business. we will see that tonight for some of these winners. let's begin now with the nominees for outstanding

investigative journalism. >> client nine, the rise and fall of eliot spitzer, amd. law and disorder, frontline, pbs. presumed guilty, pov, pbs. the oath, pov, pbs. >> and the winner is, pov, presumed guilty, pbs. [applause] >> accepting the emmy, roberto fernandez, your. [applause] [speaking in spanish]

>> thank you. everybody involved in presumed guilty, come up on stage please. imagine being kicked off the street, told you have committed a murder you know nothing about and find yourself sentenced to 20 years in a mexican state prison. this is what happened to antonio when he asked for help and he is here with us tonight. when he asked for help, my wife and i managed to get him a retrial and give them an astonishing lawyer to get him freed. but when i asked for help from people -- they turned my footage into the most successful in mexico's history. injustices are happening everywhere in the world and in almost every speced mexico system is worse than the u.s.

except perhaps -- perhaps someone. mexican move does not have the -- sadly troy davis is gone. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> the nominees for outstanding news discussion and analysis are. >> teacher town hall, education nation, msnbc. beyond borderlines, msnbc. good morning landlocked central asia, the rachel maddow show, msnbc. holy war, should americans fear islam? this week with cristiane amanpour, abc. midterm election coverage, "washington week" with gwen ifill and "national journal,"

pbs. [applause] >> and the winners the rachel maddow show with good morning landlocked a show with msnbc. >> accepting thee the enemy, corian, senior show producer. [applause] >> obviously recently the country has been famous in the news because they discovered all of these minerals in the mountains. >> we are talking about them again. we have always known it has had incredible mineral wealth. >> we do see a lot of -- and rubies and emeralds and turquoise. >> this is important. with all the stuff, with counterinsurgency and all the things that are being done to set up government and laws. >> you don't know this? >> wow. we have more people upstairs and we hope they will make it down.

this is new press. we are humbled to be here among incredible competitors and first of all rachel, she is back at 30 rock napper pairing for the show as his multiple stab so we couldn't do without are obviously an richard engel who is our guide on camera and off. [applause] msnbc president phil griffin thank you for believing as and letting us do a show that is quirky and like nothing else that is out there right now we are happy to be part of it. thanks for the troops over there and rachel and everybody who went to have first-hand knowledge of it, how credible they are and what they do to protect all of the so thank you to them and thank you to the academy and to everybody who worked on the show. thanks. [applause] moving on the nominees for outstanding live coverage of a current news story, long form,

are. 2010, abc news special event, abc. crisis in haiti, anderson cooper 360, cnn. election night, decision 2010, nbc. [applause] and the emmy goes to anderson cooper 360, crisis in haiti. [applause] >> accepting the emmy, charlie charlie moore, executive producer. >> a woman named bridget. she was 28 years old and she was a journalist teaching a class they say when the walls collapsed on her. a few concrete blocks are used to seal the crips. one more of the city's dead now laid to rest.

>> some sort of head injury. she does have a big laceration. we gave her antibiotics and she does not appear to have a head injury. she is going to be okay. [applause] >> thanks everybody so much. anderson is prepping for the show. he is on in 20 minutes so he i know extensis thanks in the same way that i want to end the reason why want everybody to come up here now is to really show that this was i think the ultimate team effort and the type of stuff that we do and it started not only with everybody standing here but also a lot of people that are in the audience today, all of our bosses and their a lot of them when they are all gathered together. for having the faith in us to go to haiti when we had no idea

what was going on there, and letting us be the first ones there because of that. and then one month later, having the faith to stave and for that we thank you. so thanks everybody, appreciate it. [applause] >> now the nominees for outstanding science and technology pro-cramming our. >> creating synthetic life, science channel. google day become hbo documentary films, hbo. time travel, into the universe with stephen hawking, discovery channel. building the great cathedrals, nova, pbs.

>> and the emmy goes to hbo documentary films, google baby. [applause] >> accepting the emmy, producer and director. >> hi. she started at 10 months. >> i would like to invite the hbo people and jeff burton to think of them very much for their trust in supporting me.