level of religious icons of old. they held honored places and were icons. >> historian harold holzer on general mcclellan and lee at 10:00 eastern and live next sunday the 150th anniversary of the battle of antietam from noon to 8:30 p.m. from antietam national battlefield. american history tv on c-span3. ..

i'm hoping it's beginning of doing more things with c-span. thank you for recording this for booktv. and thank you to all of you. i'm grateful you're here. it's a thurs night. there's so many things going on in los angeles. you could have been in a million places. you're here. i find that personally fulfills. and fulfilling totally these are important matters. thanks for all of that. [applause] a couple of personal notes the

book and how it came about. , you know, i had been engaged in kind of questions about my own heritage, i had two grandfathers, one on each side that were victims of the -- survivors their families were victims, obviously. and the only thing -- about why the government and all the people recruit would target every day people. my family were not elite, they were not even really educate there, they were farmers. why would they be targeted? and so it started to lead to these questions about why would they be hated so badly people would want to try to kill them? that was coupled with other questions that when i put them together lead me down the path of mass media and one other incident was do you remember in the 1990s when there was an

emergence of a new kind of talk radio we hadn't really heard before up until the 1990's we had strayed ahead public affairs on television and the newspaper. we the emergence of emotional, very kind of, you know, mass media that was emerging. i had gone home to see my parents in oklahoma, and my dad had been very upset and angry, i could hardly talk to him anymore. and i couldn't figure out what was going on. what had gotten in to my dad. it was almost like we lost our father. we couldn't talk about anything that had to do politics. he turned on the radio and one of these stations. with one of these hosts that likes to blame one side for everything, calls them names, and i said, dad, do you mind if

we turn that down while i'm in the car. he said, i want to hear the news. and i realized at that moment, there were a couple of things going on. one is because for many decades mass media in the hoc tried to be -- to some success of neutral. there's a lot of argument about whether or not you can even be objective in any sense within the scholarly world. most people say you can't but at least there was an effort. that was changing what happened is people got caught up in this still believing they were watching mass media that were being objective and neutral and not taking sides. so he believed everything he was hearing on the radio. we couldn't have a conversation. that has changed since then. i got my dad back, that's nice. we can passbook back and forth

about talk about most sides. media frame, it helped that he read the bock. get your dad to read the book. and the third thing that lead me down the path i had been working as he said in the public service sector in the legislature, and also in the city trying to pass policy, they thought was really in the public interest, and it was so hard. and it was so hard partly because most people didn't understand what were we were even doing. didn't noaa we were doing. i see my fellow commissioner joyce here, she was with me through part of this. and i thought, this is -- there's not enough information out there that basic public policy and every day every everyday media. that lead me down the path why the title? "kill the messenger"?

what i came to realize through the research of this book and through the research of doing it in dissertation is that mass media and mass media messages can be used for good, and they can be used for not so good. they can be used in a constructive way, they can be used in a directive way. most is -- half the book is about the more destructive parts of mass media how it has been used to destructive to end again sides and war and how it came about. the rest of the book is dedicated to ways mass media had been uses for more positive things. peacemaking, protecting human rights with, protecting the environment, things i tend to think are positive things. not everybody may agree with me on those things. and, one of the people i interviewed in boss bosnia, was

a professor there and he had quote that i realized was kind of encapsulating what i was saying. a bullet can kill a man, the idea behind the bullet can kill thousands. and so that was part of what went in to the idea of kill "kill the messenger." not journalists, not mass media, but particular paradigmed that had been used to forward these destructive ideas and destructive ends. so where is the power rooted? power is first rooted in information and ideas. and they are so powerful these information ideas, i call them the dna for society. so you know how our bodies are

all of our organs know what do because the dna is the information it tells them how to function in a system? well, society are like a system and we're like the parts that are decoding the information, and the ideas and participating in our society in our system has a result. when that information is flawed in our body, that dna gets a mutation, it doesn't go so well for the body just like it doesn't go so well for society. it can turn on itself. it can destroy parts of itself, destroying parts of itself can destroy the whole of itself. so information turns in to ideas through this concept of framing, and anybody heard this idea of framing here? he raise his hand. he's been to one of my talks.

long before that. so the the idea behind framing is that the world is full of these vast amount of data, and it doesn't always makeceps when it's disorganized and even history, you know, you couldn't read all the history there is in the world and make sense of it. you couldn't go to bosnia and understand what happened in bosnia just by walking around. it's when it's organized in a particular way, some information is put in, some information is put out, and then it kind of has a little story it tell naps is a frame. some people have a picture frame, which is part of the story, so like if i see the big room in here, and, you know, i can't see the whole room i can kind of see it preferably, i can focus on this part and get an idea of the room. i see pretty woman here and handsome man here and what a

good looking room we have. [laughter] part of the room, because if i look over there -- no comment! [laughter] so that's part of the concept. then there's this other piece which is the idea of spin. spin zone. and itas an experiment that cupture -- captures this better than i can tell in any other story. the communication scholars took a kkk rally, and that wanted to happen in new york, and they took two different newspaper articles about it, one framed it as an issue of public safety and how it wasn't safe thing, and faye they gave it to one group. they took article that framed it as an issue of free speech and essence carried an argument it's the kk but we stand for free

speech and they gave it to another group. same organization, same history of the organization, we know the background of the organization, two different reactions. people who saw the free speech frame supported their right to hold a rally despite the view about the organization. people who saw the public safety frame, not so much. didn't support it. had some arguments against it. so together that's the -- that is the essence of a frame. the idea of some information in some information out and it has this angle. it tells a story. so media frames are what gives not just media frames, all frames, when they get disseminated in mass media they get sent to a wider and wider audience. but all frames tell a particular

story. and what i found in each of the genocide l situation it almost told the exact same story only it was the characters changed. so there was a god guy and a bad guy. there was always a political problem in which the bad guy got blamed. there was always an argument that the good guy belonged to the land and that the bad guy was an invader. there was aningment that the good guy was doing this good good-for-society was clean and the bad guy was dirty and by the very presence was soiling society. and sometimes it was worse than that an i'll get to that the first example is the one of rwanda. i tell the rwanda story first all.

it's the most clear picture that we get about how mass media can be so effective. one radio station that would disseminating these kinds of messages. it flipped to society. all societies have ranker. and societies have a -- [inaudible] but how do you get a brother to kill a brother? or how do you get a husband to kale wife in the name of -- to kill a wife in the name of some cause. or doctors to kill their patients or teachers to kill their students? set them all on fire? that's a hard task. and it wasn't unique to rwanda that people who were turning on each other and turning each other in. it was in bosnia, best men at each other's weddings. families breaking up because there were intermanages in these

indications. i meant to turn my time on, i didn't. i'm going to do that right now. oops. so what happens in genocide situation? it's not media alone, obviously. there's always a crisis situation, right? but crises can be resolved and cooperative ways. they don't always mean that you're going turn on the other. so crisis comes some often they have what we call a vicious leader that comes this far. we've got the are mania, we had hitler in nazi germany, but leaders are nothing without followers. why are people following these malignant leaders? well, this goes in along with

the story. so in rue rwanda, you had this crisis situation, you had a malignant leader. you had an incident where the plane of the president was shot down. and then you had a radio station that been around. it was the hip station. it played the best music. it told the funniest jokes. it had political commentary, and this once the plane came down, it became more and more version targeting one particular group for eye nailuation. blaming then for the problems in rue rwanda particularly for shooting down the plane of the president, painting them as they said the invader. soiling the land, and the worst part of it that really gets people to kill the other is that if you don't kill them first, they're going to kill you.

across all genocides it's there. when the message is coming through the rtlm, which is the radio station in rwanda, it was one message, not countered by other mass media. rwanda is a heavy reading society as much as it's an audio society. it listened to a lot of radio. people got these metsz angs over and over again along with the hip messages of joke and great songs and they started to believe them. they started to believe that their neighbor was after them. they started to believe that if they didn't kill they would be killed. and if they didn't kill, their democracy would fall apart. their democracy. and this is the other element of the genocide frame.

cause for which everybody can get behind. democracy sounds; right? we like the sound of majortarian democracy. it's often saving humid. in nazi germany they must said humanity because they are ruining it. and there's a international jewish conspiracy. and so people got scared. and mass media was the way they were sending the message to people. in rwanda it was 100 days. 800,000 people brutally killed. a lot of hatred. a lot with machetes, not gun, things that made them feel pain for the longest period of time they could possibly. that is not -- it's not human. this is beyond human. but unfortunately, it's not

unique. so we saw very similar things in bosnia where they had intentionally put people in to these concentration camps they would starve to death and die of thirst and disease, they would torture them, similar in the holocaust, similar in the again side. it was intense hatred that was go oned for people -- developed for people. how does it happen? we get these e messages don't rereject them when we know our neighbors? it doesn't always happen in every situation. it happens when it's concentrated media and it's not countered. it's not opposed by another media source or and a society developed developed in which all of this psychology phenomena develops.

most people say group think, right? group think when a group of people all agree on something and one person knows it's wrong. often goes silent. they did the example where they just took like the size of a line, and they told everybody to say the size of the line. six inches inches with and then the person wolfer doing the experiment on, who knew that was not six inches but said it was six inches because everybody else said it was six inches. what is this phenomena? what everybody does something, why do we start to doubt others? start to doubt our own morality. it's just this human phenomenon that we start to conform to our surroundings. and not everybody does. i think that's an important

point. even in rwanda, even in the holocaust, even in the genocide certainly in bosnia there were discenters who was rescuing the other. and they were defying and risking their lives to rescue the other. my own family, if weren't for the turkish neighbors who warned them, probably wouldn't have made it. and that is true time and again for many families. but for the vast majority, this group phenomena starts to take over. there's one [inaudible] woe we have mob behavior and group think and intergroup relations. you know how you go to a ball game and the bad guy gets a point? and everybody just gets really

upset about it? that's an intergroup motion. what happens they have an automatic behavioral component to them. anger has an need to resolve it. resentment needs change this. hated tried has a need to destroy the other. rage has a need to destroy the other. and these emotions take over in the periods when the story is told that it's unjust. well, this isn't the only story. this is the good news. in rwanda's. twin. i loved to talk about them. i'm going give you the example, it's going sound like a happy ending, i have to warn you ahead of time. there's no such thing as a happy ending.

politics is changing and it can go one way and then it can go back the other way. but [inaudible] weren't engaged in the struggle. the religion is the same. the language is the same. and, by the way, across the board, there was no language difference or religion difference between the people in rwanda or in the sister city. they were engaged in the same kind of [inaudible] killings one side would hear the other side was going kill. they go and beat them to it. similar is what was going on in the other side. but something changed in the sister city. it didn't go down the genocide path.

and you stop and say okay they had the malignant leadership. they had the crisis situation, they even had mass media that was demonizing the other and blaming the other developing hate for the other. what was the difference? well, there were two things. one is they did not have an rtlm. they had competing frames. it wasn't necessarily good. they were killing each other. but then a bunch of people got involved. some from the u.s. and some from europe. they set up a new studio. they said we're going try a media experiment here. and these experiments included every news story is going to be reported on by one of each together. that means not only grow on the

information you have to agree on the frame. that means you can't just blame the whole thing on the other side. and so now they found themselves trying to figure out what was going on. like why were people were killing each other? what was underneath the conflict? and going and realizing that the who two and the tooty were all people. they had been dehumanized for so long as. they had been called flees and cook roaches and infestation. now they were like, wow, then they started this radio program, and there's beautiful things that started to happen. one of the radio programs, they started having conversations about the roll of bystanders. and the role of people who were

rescued the other side. before these programs, if one person was a [inaudible] i mix them up. they should marry and make it better. one person from one side rescued the one from the other side, that person would be considered a traitor. they would be marked for death. right. it's pretty common in wartime situations. traitor, you can't help the other side. what happened on the radio programs is that they started to talk about what a heroic act that was to be so humane as to rescue somebody for being killed even it was from the other side. and the more they talked about this, the more the traitors started sounding like a hero. more people would call in and confess they were rescuing somebody from the other side, then it became more common

place. there was an incident that happened that was something. the leaders of the factions were sending in communique. and the head of this journal operation i had of the privilege of talking to him on the known compile but they send send in the communique he would read them and say, this isn't true. come back when something is true. and so instead of getting like what we see, even in western media they say, you know, congressman such and such says that d.a., d.a., d.a., he said i'm not saying that. come back with something true. or come back with something productive and constructive. and i'll put it on the air. it started to change how people responded. it started to change how people were thinking.

several pages and i didn't look at my notes. now i don't know where i am. [laughter] another really important part was the radio drama. again, it's a radio society. you couldn't tell who was who was there were some physical differents allegedly that but we don't know if they were really that different. and so you see the strife that these people went through and the drama they went through as a result of the war, but you didn't know if it was your side or the other side. it started to develop this kind of compassion for the others. so these are just a few of the elements of a mass media that

took something from the brink of genocide, where next door it was a genocide, and managed to bring it to a point of having a peace agreement, though i would argue it has long ways to go most do. most , i mean, most human interactions we look out there and see there's a lot of violence. it's one of the stories where we saw peacemaking going on in mass media. not just mass media. it's a role they can play. we have seen in major trans formations, two others i like to talk about, one is the south african transformation. and south africa was, as most of you know, an appar tide

country. very brutal to the south africans. they had a divided media within the country. so the africa language really never knew any other story other than what the state was telling, which was all their side, nelson mandela was their terrorist, where as the english language, and the african language media were telling a completely different story and were showing the abuses and the killings that was going on and the utter wrongness as an apart tide situation. that couldn't solve it on their own. there was too much lopsided power. over the years journalist kept taking the story to the next

level, the next level, and the next level until businesses got involved. governments got involved, sanctions, business sanctions, economic sanctions, until finally. what if knob knew that information. what if nobody ever challenged the structure. what if nobody ever told the story of steve who was beaten to death in the jail cell? nobody could have acted. so this is one more way in media played a role in transforming something important from racist system to a multiracial democracy. northern ireland we see

journalist actually helping to bring about a peace process. i want to leave time for questions. so -- we focus on the lot of the extreme cases, and sometime it is doesn't quite that extreme, but there are still subtle things that are cur. so the united states, for example, is very polarized. right now. the media has been very polarized and people are going in to what we call ecochambers they only listen and watch and read some immediate why. and they hear the same story over and over and over again. and other people watch and listen and read the other media. it's not 100% true, by the way, there is some people who cross

over. there is a large enough section of the society that are doing that. so one of the most important issues facing us today is the issue of climate change. we heard that 93% of the ice we've been seeing drought across the country. food prices are shooting up. there are expecting ocean levels to really rise quite a bit receding the coastline. extreme weather getting worse, and no policy of action. why no policy action? what's going on in the policy realm? why aren't policy makers doing something? why aren't people getting out of their suv? maybe climate change isn't happening. to some people, it's not happening. in fact, it's worse than not

happening because scientists are scam artists. and if you listen and read and watch particular media, this is repeated over and over and over again. the scientist are scamming you. dozen and dozens of news articles so what do you think that does? they don't believe scientist anymore. to take the faith out of science completely we might be in some more trouble. this is something upon us right now. it's something that media are

confusing the issue on. and there are two ways we're hearing this reporting. most of the traditional media are doing a he said she said. such and such scientist said not only the ten hottest years but such and such scientist who, by the way, is not a real scientist. i'm not going to tell you that, says there's no such thing as a compliment change. this is a problem. and the worst part is the vilification effect it takes the faith out of science. so i think i want to close this saying a few things. one is that there's several main media effects. one is information, right? if you don't know, if you don't understand, if people don't here read, comp end, they cannot act in a responsible way. and then a democratic society

being able to know and act in a responsible way. you can't do anything about things dwrowbility know. another one is agenda setting. what people think about is often what they hear and read and learn from some form of media. it's changing with social media. it's changing a lot. we'll talk about that quickly. and it brings certain things to the forefront and there's only so much you can have there and there's the framing effect which i talked about. and cultural effects. this is one i just wanted to emphasize a little bit. what are cultural effects? what what are the things we care about? what are the things that are right? what are the things that are just? what are the things that are acceptable down to the clothes we wear? well, some of that is

perpetrated to a mass media thing. there's a social law that gets established and political scientist have found that social laws are actually more powerful than state laws. so, you know, we sped to get here? if we break the state law, but, you know, don't violate social laws very often. so when was the last time you saw a man wearing a pink skirt? unacceptable. what would happen if he did that? that's a social law and you can't violate them. i have a -- i have chapter in here about changing a important social law which was the female genital cutting which in ten years they completely almost, it's never completely eradicated. it's almost completely e rad candidated because it was a

powerful social law. nobody would talk to a girl much less marry a young woman had had she not been what they called "cut" but through a social action campaign with mass immediate, they got people to understand the the custom what was going on with the custom. cost was. people's health and well being, and democratic choice. so now with new media, the internet how it's changing for good and bad. for good traditional mass media told us to think about it. not that we obeyed. the they gave us the news and the frame and it was what we got. god news about was it was

usually fact checked. two-source and it wasn't usually right-of-way with misinformation here in the u.s., the bad news they kept out a lot of stuff we wanted to know about. that's changing. now the gate is -- [inaudible] people are taking things and making a big news issue out of it and it's spreading all over the world and the traditional mas media are getting it and taking it further. we saw it with the arab spring; right? people are -- they were tweeting it, they were blogging it, they were facebooking it. they had been in there for many years capturing some of the changes that were going on. the other good part, there's certain parts of the world where we can't get much information out. with the social media we are

getting it. i don't know if anybody saw burma with a documentary about burmese video journalists and he was capturing all the oppression that he and others were fashions on -- faces on the cell video and they made a movie of it. and iran when the green revolution was attempted and there were beatings. people were capturing it and putting it on the internet. there's an open window here because of the internet and social media but then you have the other side, which is a lot of misinformation on there too. there -- it's not getting vetted for factual data. and it's not getting vetted for the framing and some of it can be very vicious. doctor vid imroa getting send anter that aren't really what happened. we saw this happen here in the

bbc and other places. how are we going to deal with all of this? the other thing i'm hoping will occur more is a result of new media is cross-border clap ration -- lab rations. so people can actually learn from each other curl -- culturally when they can't afford to fly over there other there would be other restrictions about going to learn other cultures and learn what is actually occurring and exchanging information. that would be quite a beautiful thing. and i think it's starting to happen with some of the blogs. but i think we are hoping to see more of this. so in closing, i want to say that we have great potential to

have our media both our social media, and our mass media start to stand for the thing west care about and to stop being a divider and be more of a uniter. the us v them frames that we are fed since very early in the movies, in sports, in war, they're just a frame. it's really all us. there really is no them. so if we can start to -- [inaudible] the frames and start to what's going on and build more of the media that we like to see. more that supports the growth of human potential, peaceful society, protection of human rights, with can do it in

several ways. traditional media is faces struggling competing with the internet, funding it in the future. newspapers are folding and closing down. it but the institutions like the educational institutions can start to work together and build a media that is fact checked it has depth and scholarly terrible to help people understand political phenomenon more. other models that remerging from other countries are things like cooperatives where journalists are building media together. so that they run it and not an executive telling them what to do. so they can be based on journalistic principles. it can be based on what we see in places like rwanda where both sides have to check the frames or the sister city of the rue wan did. i have great hope, i have great

hope that we can build this if people stay vigilant and committed. the bottom line we are part of the media now. all of the twitter and facebooks and all of our blogs and internets -- how do you like that? i liked that. collectively and you never know who is actually really reading these things and getting them. when we choose the frames, that forward what we would like to see in the world, and we correct the factual misinformation, and we share what we know to be true, and we start to see a change gradually. as it builds, the more traditionally immediate why, and we share the other way around too. so thank you so much. i'll take a question or two.

[applause] [applause] i'll just take one. dr. apple ton? >> thanks. i have a question of you mention earlier that in rwanda there was a set of -- clipping of the frame the process by which the frame one frame becomes a dominant frame, how much do you think that individual such as hitler or an individual person woo is often -- [inaudible] or something like that helps in not flipping the frame from one to the other or . >> you're asking the roam of leaders. >> how do they reality? >> i think they matter a lot. there's different -- "kill the messenger," the idea was to kill

the paradigm that is directive and sometimes oftentimes the par diefm that is destructive is lead by a malignant narcissistic leader and it was in rwanda. it wasn't a free media. it was a media that was operated by a particular ideological group. it was privately held. it wasn't government. we can't say government media bad and in some cases, you know, government media can do good thing. like the bbc is mostly great. not so great in the northern ireland case. in a lot of other ways. when it slips, i didn't mean to imply in rwanda it flipped. it didn't flip. it gradually went there. it was the same thing in nazi germany. the flip in rwanda was when the plane went down. all the blame landed on the other people for taking the

plane down and then it became increasingly hateful in the messages. and usually it's gradual. nazi germany was very gradual. take these rights away insult the jews, take more rights away, call them all of awful names. isolate them in to the ghettos and justify it by saying they're destroying humidity and part of the international conspiracy. start killing them and maybe even don't tell anybody because a lot of what was going on in the germany press they were just creating this positive morale around hitler and turning the country around and hiding what they were doing. even while they were saying awful things about jewish people. does that answer your question?

so in nazi -- so leadership does matter. if i got your question right, just for a second. they didn't talk about it at all. in the wars of yugoslavia. part of the war was about seizing mass media the certain forces were going in and grabbing television station and transmitting and their putting messages. killing the journalist, by the way. it was an awful thing. but that was again to control the message. and that would be a flip. one minute you have journalism. ethical journalism. one minute you have malignant leader. controlling the message and dead journalists. it was awful. [inaudible]

>> i appreciate your [inaudible] does that become dangerous such aslet say reports about the genocide or the jewish holocaust are they feature -- [inaudible] there are people who don't believe landed on the moon should science reports feature them? so where is that line and who term terms it? >> that's an important question. there's a line in my book i say we don't question gravity more. i mean, it's established. we have gravity, right. there certain things that factual. i don't think that it is a perspective. an opinion that tries to counter factually established law or rule or fact such as the gene

side, such as the holocaust or climate change. if there was a legitimate finding that could challenge a fact, you know, now we know there's a [inaudible] did i say it right? it was a new finding. does everybody know what i'm talking about? it was a subatomic particle that sentence have been searching for years and years and years they finally established mostly established they're not 100% established it exists and gives mass. gives us mass. enough fizz iblgs. -- physics. if there's evidence, that's one thing.

should the scientific community in the puree view journals 100% agreement what is happening is the planet is warning, and warming as a result of human activity. the scientist, i shouldn't put it in quotes, they are scientist most are working for think tanks that serve positive l fuel industry and goal industry. the second batch we're doing climate research should they be given equal ground? no. should the holocaust denier be given equal ground? no. that's established. should we argue that's not gravity?

does that answer your question? , i mean, i don't see anything wrong with, you know, entertainment purposes to be able to explore something to some degree, but, you know, somewhere around the '90s from fact base news to, you know, [inaudible] anything that happened that was because it was change. >> were there a few changes that

were going on during the '90s. some people hate the fairness doctrine. it was two sides to everything that was one of the things that changed. there were ore changes part of it dealt with consolidation industry and the laws that governor the consolidation and the mergers changed so that you could have more consolidation and mergers. one single tenty owning a lot of mass media. some of it was also the way we treated the public airways but then in the -- [inaudible] so there were several things going on at the same time. and i think, you know, here in the u.s. it's a different situation than with what we see internationally. internationally we so a lot of it is power. internationally we saw these ma

malignant using mass media to get control and kill others. here in the u.s., we see corporate companies trying to make as much money they possibly can by feeding us the lowest common denominator who is often emotional very rupert murdoch believes in chiement change. he is proud of making fox news the leader not just fox news news corporation the leading green media company. the leading. news corporation. the same one that's on your three dozen news segments scam artists yet rue bert murdoch himself brags about how much -- [inaudible] how do you explain that? that is in the book. how do you explain that? makes money to publicly traded

company. i don't think there's anything wrong with people making money, but there's got to be some kind of balancing with the public good. iraq war, you know, if we don't talk too much about them not fact checking the iraq war and as a result of that. but, you know, speaking the new york times have a mission to provide the public service and for-profit. can you do that? i guess it can be done. i know, i'm going off here on your question. [inaudible] >> what were your trusted news sources for information? >> first thing i did to write this book, i went to the to the peer review literature. and the resource of the peer review literature first is that

most people know the peer review process. the peer review process what districts use when you submit research you submit it without your name or institution it goes to a body that fact checks it before it can be published. and once it passes a fact checking and if they really agree in this blind process that you are saying something that is a a contribution and b is not, you know, hogwash then it can be published that's where i started. and there a flaws in every system and there are flaws in the peer review process too. at least it's, you know, substantive in terms of fact checked enough that i can it's it as a foundation. some of the chapters, and bosnia was in one in particular, there were competing journals. there were two different things

about what happened in bosnia. i got on a plane and went there. and i talked to people around the different sides and judges and prosecutors and i talked to professors, and settled in that actually the site that had the most journals who were the ones that most interviewed agreed with. in other words, the side that -- it without -- going too much in to the chapter, most people agreed on what happened in bosnia in terms of the plovers and the academics and the researchers. there were a handful that didn't. but they were people like -- [inaudible] and that'sy went back. i found that the the majority of people this story was more aligned with the boss boss knee began intellectual and people on the streets. agreed with.

i started with the peer review if there was a conflict or problem. not -- [inaudible] when i was in bosnia, i spoke to, like i said, judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, people on the street, professors, students, poem who lived through it, people who parents lived through it, and it was -- it was a task. but that was one that was the big tough one to resolve. the rest of them -- i would say there was a pretty solid understanding about what it actually happened in the academic community. does that answer your question? okay. [applause] [applause] for more information visit the author's website.

how do students cheat? let me count the ways. researchers conducted in 1993 study that tallied the cheating activities report bid students in various surveys over the years. the laundry list includes copying from another student's exam, taking an exam for someone else, purchasing term papers, copying materials without footnoting, faking illness to avoid an exam, using notes in your book during an exam when prohibits, reviewing a stolen copy of the exam, giving test questions to students in another class, developing a personal relationship with the instructor for the purpose of getting test information [laughter]

blackmail, hiring the ghost writer, force forgeing documents, collaborating on. because everybody wants to -- the students. everybody wants to make them up. the big time student athletes. the trouble is the big time student athletes are in tinny fraction of the franchise. 155 people go in the pros are drafted every year from the football imper prize. it's tiny. that's a lot of kids who are playing in a franchise. students who play sports in college at the high level are students and athletes that are just like any other two-career person they should if they are functioning well at bothp