it is moving to me because of course i have a son who i raised outside of marriage with a child's view of single motherhood in response to stop criticizing single mothers and it is an adult on who is a successful writer and obviously his mother did a great job over the gain on what it costs her and what it cost him. i think the answer is really complicated. stability does matter. that is my stable mothers who don't cohabit do better than

other single mothers. i do believe children want to know what now must ask you now at whether or not loves exclusively female touristic. one of the questions he have to do with the spiders in my father seemed to me quite why does one have to people who seem to be there for me? >> host: there's two things that strike me. it seems like same-sex couples same-sex families, if we have time -- i'm not, but many do you -- they are beaten me to pay

the price for father abandoned by heterosexual fathers, where this is problem with others to stick around and let their children, that we can't support relationships with people who don't happen to fall in love heterosexually. >> guest: is only price if you have a relationship of marriage. taking on a woman and her children is not some thing that's raised for you. it's not like i'm trying to make you pay a price. what you want to do is not managed. in my view. postcode there are many people, families and so on, who want to somehow acknowledge and support that, what the law to acknowledge us as we understand ourselves to be, want to stand behind us and witness to that

commitment. earlier you said something about passing on moral understanding and community, what struck me. because you -- i'll stick with that point. because you recognize a pass on moral understanding and community, marriage of the word is important. we both agree the word is important. but the fact that one's family and friends and allied knowledge that household. marriage provides an opportunity to pass on moral understanding to each other and any children who might be raised. going back to my earlier concern, if not marriage, what? i know you feel like it's not maggie gallagher's job to answer that. >> host: i would say the second parent adoption is more significant and dangerous to rely urge for your parental

rights and relationship. again, focusing on the welfare of the children. the i have concerns about deliberately creating children to be deprived of a mother father, which would've played to opposite might as well as same-sex couples. if you can replace a mother and father, unique to respect everyone who's trying to do it. so that's very short. we don't have a lot of time to go in to it. if i am right about marriage, it with a because wele's interestn all need it. if we believe america is a special place this allows you to build a life together, if we want that to projecting the

future, we need to strengthen our marriage culture because we are headed for a fairly serious problem. society stuck behind britain and women together to make the next generation. what i've never been able to get you to say is how we will strengthen in the dispatcher of normative ideal, while simultaneously being always pushed to say that same-sex relationships are just the same, serve the same purpose is immediately treated the same in the public square. >> host: i don't want to say just the same in a release we have to wrap a good like you, i want to strengthen the marriage culture and commitment is people's care and knowledge. >> host: i hope i'm wrong and you are right. >> guest: i appreciate the opportunity to try to work it out, to try to work it out in

the book an ongoing dialogue. >> host: it's always amazing to me about these things. i know people were listening to appreciate and can have. >> guest: i appreciate being here as well, thank you for being here as well. >> eric deggans is next on the tv.

mr. deggans for the tampa bay times argues the media is fractured into smaller divisions populated by pundits to prey upon the fears and prejudices of their viewers to garner larger audiences. this is about an hour 10. >> thank you for having me. i'm here to talk about the teams for my new book, "race-baiter." it's interesting i got the idea a while ago to basically take the writing i've been doing about race and society and media and put it in to one book. it was interesting. it was interesting and it was depressing, i'll be honest. it's pretty and in this book for domain name around march of last year. if you remember around march of last year was when the trees on our situation became a huge national story. and i'm sitting in florida close to ground zero. so we have all this reporting

going on about the 17-year-old kid, come african-american in a subdivision in florida, possibly minding his own business in the wind up in a fight watch volunteer and gets shot to death. three weeks before my deadline. all of a sudden i have to incorporate this stuff about racing media that came out in the wake of that really explosive international story. just as that went down the sand reflects happen for the student at georgetown university by before congressional committee, wanted to talk about having her insurance cover contraception and for her trouble she got called a on national radio. that cost in 50 plus advertisers and threaten the whole business model of talk radio. so the talk radio chat or get to work over.

but it also convinced me of is a really important ideas that america is trying to a messy and complicated, but also import. we try to build a country where diversity is strength, where you're not subjugated or held back or set apart because of their cultural background or what you look like or what your gender is, that where we value that tough and find that to be some pain that had super strength that makes us a better nation. for better or for worse, there's not many nations out there trying to do that the way we are. so it's going to be messy, complicated in touch. so our conversations about race in america. when i try to have these talks, i basically have a few ground rules, very simple.

first, this is a conversation. as we go forward, i will ask you guys to give me feedback. we are doing this for c-span television, so we have to get you a mike if you want. who's going to be doing that clicks as the presentation goes on, and ask a few questions here or there and if you want to pipe in come the stick your hand up and look at your comments. we want this to be a conversation. second, mistakes don't make you racist. one of the things that is both a good and bad thing about demonizing racism in america is a tend to think now prejudice and stereotyping as ugly ideas on the fringe that only certain people will indulge. in a weird way, that is outsourcing racism. that is seen only certain kind of people and probably wear white sheets in their off hours, but they're the only people who can fall prey to stereotypes and

prejudice that that's just not true. falling prey to stereotypes doesn't make your races. it makes you human. also, everyone gets respect. if you decide you want to raise your hand and dispute something i said, you have an alternative point of view, i definitely want to hear it you want to be respectful about hearing it is i not mr. respectful of hearing what i have to say. these concepts apply to many marginalized groups in america. as much as i'm going to talk about black and white, were also going to talk about other groups. this can stretch to how muslims are treated, stretch to how people are treated and hispanics i repurposed to struggle with how is for trade in the media and maybe out the debate prompted by disturbing that it

meant she. that's a requirement talk about. this is old media. those of you in a certain agent is through will be depressed to know how few students actually recognize this guy and this guy when i gave speeches earlier today. i'm going to assume we all know who they are. so hawkeye pearce from nash and walter cronkite, the most trusted in america at one point. one of things that is interesting i heard was until recently was the most watch it for this show and reportedly according to ms. and legends, whenever the commercials came on for the finale episode, the water table in new york would down. that was before you could dvr and pause and all that stuff. i was trying to explain what a

sight to watch television when he didn't have the vcr to tape it. i felt like i was talking about the stone ages. so this is old idea. what i tell people is if you want to know and 95% think that the immediate commit figure out who's making money or losing money, snake e-money or who's losing money. old media used to make money by getting this audiences and sell advertisers access to those audiences and that's how they made money. if you want to get together big audience, you can't have a message that's divisive. the whole point of get people together watching the same thing. you're not going of messages that pit one part against another because they won't get together and you won't go charge brought drinkable or mcdonald's a lot of money for ads. all about money. modern media monetizes.

some modern media says look, we're never going to get nonbeing the size of the finale of masher the cosby show about uncle walter used to call the cbs evening news. so we will find a niche. john might nails the middle created channel called comedy central that specializes in the humid in the supersized lifestyle to the point where they will show up in droves we will target older women and create a channel called lifetime filled with movies where they are constantly in peril and looking for men to come and save them from the peril and that will be the channel to supercenters that lifestyle. along the way are some channels that you stereotyping and prejudice to draw an audience and also hold those audiences come to inoculate them from going to other places.

as a matter of fact, the same used to mobilize local parties are now used to galvanize media audiences. when you think of the latest election we all survived. as in florida. it is tough to survive. i only had to wait 45 minutes to though, so that wasn't bad. the same tactics used to mobilize political parties. if you're a politician, you don't say i'm great and the other guy won't be good at the job. you see the other guy is a liar. the other guy can't be trusted. you see the other guys morally reprehensible are morally suspect. you don't say you can do the job better. the other guy somehow deficient. what we see in modern india companies mediate the same thing. fox news doesn't say we're better at reporting news. they say the other side is liberally biased. the other side is not to tell

you the truth. the other side with deliberately trick you because they have a political agenda, so you should trust us. what ends up happening is that he rose people's trust in all journalism. so why should we care about this? why should we care about the fact that there are stereotypes and prejudice in media? that is the question i'm asking you that they expect you to answer. why should we care about this? way in the back. [inaudible] because we want an perspective. why do we want and check your perspective? >> so we can make an educated decision because democracy depends upon not. >> right, it seems like you're

saying in a complicated way from a mismatched set letter and is even some method one word. why do we care about this? go-ahead. >> who's going to be -- who's going to affect you? and make you might be the person who gets marginalized or misrepresented. one reason i think is for trails and minorities reflect how the majority society these entries these issues and people. so woo movies and television.the world and merry bacon about how america feels about black people, women, hispanics, about everything. because media is created with a set of values. every time you watch a tv show, there's a set of values embedded in that presentation. you know who the good guys.

you know who the bad guy is an attention of of the story. so these for trails go out there. one of the things interesting to me is i still can't believe in 1997 ellen degenerate ascended on the cover of "time" magazine by say gap, i am gay. a couple years ago near a patrick harris said he was gay there was like two paragraphs. 10 years, 12 years. for the cover of "time" magazine to be can barely care enough to get a blog post out of it. so what changed that was the betrayal of gay people in the media. we got used to seeing that the relationships come to gay lesson in media and realized segura said. not that big of a deal. but that only changes that paper trails are accurate and fair.

media images resonate, especially with those who have no practical experience. i was in a band that was moderately successful here in bloomington to call the boys fan. resupply at jake's in the blooper to make a sign to motown from here and made a record for them. one of the last things i did with the band is moving to and played for two months at a club over there. there wasn't much to do. we don't speak the language and read the language, you can't listen to the radio. you can't watch television, but the one thing i can do is go to the movie theater and watch american movies because they don't dove over the lines. they just have subtitles in japanese. it was like being an american theater except i was the only western person in a 200 seat

theater. not the only black person. the only non-asian person. so i'm sitting there watching these movies and see how black people are portrayed in these movies and a lot of times i'll tell you is full of stereotypes. this kind of insulting. it is kind of depressing and then i walk out of the theater and i'm wondering how what do these people think about it because they just love that? finally, accuracy. you are saying about shipping, but one with a theater and a vector information, you can't make good decisions in a democracy. his school journalism were all about accuracy. media outlets so they stereotypes and prejudice are not accurate. so when my book, each chapter takes on a different element. what i want to do now,

especially since c-span is taping is her booktv, should read some of the boat. i'm going to read a little bit out of the first chapter. this is a passage that involves me and my good friend, though o'reilly. so the first and only time i met fox news channel star bill o'reilly, he looked at me like i owed him money. the situation was an uncomfortable one. he and a publicity executive hattery chevenement interview requests for this very but despite the fact he inspired the title and though he played several stops on a st. petersburg florida home basic codicil book, sharing a cup of joe with me was not high on his to-do list because we have is a therapist might say, a little bit of history. at various times on its evening cablecast, o'reilly has called a dishonest, racially motivated and one of the biggest race

baiters are criticizing the way he talks about race on his program. as i planned, i wanted to talk with o'reilly and he didn't want to talk with me. when the anchor came to give his speech, he cannot mean invitation to a press conference he was holding before the event. we have history one. he probably won't be happy to see me there. sure enough when they gathered in this spofford area deep inside the family so hollow, taste allows are the order of the day. two reporters into high school students like me and a small round table were o'reilly was going to fill questions after talking with my presence, the president presented the theory that one question. will you be civil? of course i replied, as long as he is. until this day almost all of our disagreements occurred in a.d. appeared afterward a story for the st. petersburg times, pan

and especially put together for the fox broadcast network, he complained about the newspaper so much that my e-mail so that messages from his fans. when i sat on a 2008 panel discussion at a symposium in minneapolis covered by the anti-consolidation datawatch docs free press, has been a producer to interview me on camera, amber stuck him ask in my head and appeared on the show. never heard back. once i got a call from a producer wanted to know what political party was registered under and whether it given any money to political candidates. i'm a registered democrat and journalist so i don't have any money to give anyway. he would later note that he couldn't find one tv critic who isn't a liberal a registered democrat without detailing his research cafés. if you relied on phone calls like the one i thought, i bet he didn't get any answers. that didn't seem to get under

his skin like the comment as once a radio show 2007 by sylvia's restaurant, a well-established solo flute eatery in harlem recalling dynamic pavel sharpton i couldn't get over the fact there is no difference between sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in new york city. even though it's run by blacks, primarily the same. that's what the societies about in the u.s.a. there is no difference. later during a conversation with ron williams he noted there was that one person who is screaming i want more iced tea. it was like going into an italian restaurant in an all-white suburb and people were sitting there and having fun with no crazy at all. he posted a transcript of the most disturbing find highlighted, sparking coverage in the press, the new york daily news, cnn and the tampa bay

times. i wrote noting how the sound of an awful backhanded compliment he walked into the door is expecting a scene from a bad rap video. o'reilly blamed matters of a metal part of a show where he talked about his grandmother's racism come out she'd never a black person and her attitude was translated as irrational hostility and indeed the full audio gear from some statement to some insulting saying i think black americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. they're getting away from the jacksons and people trying to the country race-based culture to more conciliatory note that a prejudice exists because by 80 a pass on harmful images of black people. it seemed obvious then and now as we all have a great vocabulary for talking about any of this into often instead of a respectful dialogue we fight. all of which i want to discuss with o'reilly that my first question why he called the race

baiters didn't get much response. i don't have in front of me. i'm not going to answer quiz for yourself because i don't know what the context is. if you have a transcript of take a look at it. he said white people couldn't talk to black people. about issues of race. i did a commentary in harlem where i was very calm and entry about the restaurant one went on the night is shattered by ideologues looking at things out of context. why did you area commentary blaming the reverend jeremiah wright, civil rights act this jesse jackson and me are hoping to create a climate where good people are being driven away from constrictive tablet advance racial harmony invited every template race baiting feature way people? it for all? overall ducal kaaba can't wait people make mistakes, two clicks

later asked about the track record of fox news and closely covered issues that may height using putting sean hannity making the case that there a couple first african-american to be a tenured professor at harvard law school with a radical extremist closely linked to president obama. to be honest, i wasn't a surprise hit and get answers from the questions. people used to have and want at a conversation sometimes have trouble when the setting is different. forget about a meaningful discussion on opposing views are aligned people of color the space to initiate debate. instead, opponents are dismissed with a term is toxic meaning shuts down all discussion. sometimes such a slur from the right people feels less like a criticism and a badge of honor communicating mostly one thing. you're on the right track. that's a little bit to give you

a sense of what it's like to cross with my good friend will o'reilly. it also explains why he wrote the book in the first place because i feel like when you want to have discussions about how prejudice plays out, racism plays out, how biased they cited media, people turn that around and call you to reese peter. i'm trying to reclaim the word a little bit and each chapter takes on a different element of this equation. i started out talking about msnbc and fox news in the first chapter subtitled downgrading journalism in the race to many political ratings fight. the pew center for research did a poll where they asked a bunch of people, if somebody comes to you and asks you to see what pops in your mind, the media the media does this with the media does not, what pops in your

mind? 63% of the time they sent a cable news channel. so cable news may not get the lion share of tv news ratings. broadcast, tv, news outlets strive much bigger audience. when we talk about the media, often we are talking about cable news. when you have to ideologically opposed news channels cover the same stories and presented widely different pictures of what's going on, that arose people's confidence in journalism in general. i'll sharpton in the first chapter was kind enough to give me an interview even after he said on cnn i question whether or not msnbc should have given him an anchor job, so i figured props for being willing to talk to me. some of the things he does as an anchor and advocate trouble me as a media critic. in the middle of the trayvon martin situation were said to

sam was trying to pressure officials in florida to charge george zimmerman, the man who shot and killed him with murder, i'll sharpton decided to be a spokesman for the family. on march 22nd there is a huge rally in florida. part of the reason was to raise money to help impress legal fights. i'll sharpton is getting people to donate money, pressure and are calling for prosecutors to go after george seven minute 6:00 rolls around and he grabs the parents, get in front of a camera and spent an hour hosting its msn ec show politics nation. the matches overcome he goes back back to the rally and rate back to raising money and right back to pressuring prosecutors to go after george zimmerman. and now i ask you, what's wrong with? what's wrong with that?

what's wrong with al sharpton collect the money for trade on martin's family and hosting a show called politics nation on msnbc? >> he's becoming part of the story. >> and he is a tremendous conflict of interest. i'm the one hand he has a vested interest in seeing church sermon prosecuted and not the other hand, he's the voice of the cable news channel, which hopefully would fairly cover this issue. that's a topic of interest as educators and students we learn about and teach people to avoid. at msnbc, 18 months before that, keith olbermann and joe scarborough got suspended for giving contributions to political candidates without a previous okay from nbc news. here, they also later rally were

collecting money for the family at the heart of the biggest news story on the planet at the time. msnbc says everyone knows he's an anchor and advocate and it's not like their china hide anything. i feel like people look at that and say well, he's got an agenda. everybody's got an agenda. george zimmerman sued nbc news because another part of nbc news made a mistake when they edited audio of the 9-1-1 tape for george zimmerman was talking to stamford police admit it look like he had focused on trade on the because of his race and the call. so anybody want to take that someone i'll sharpton date is going to come out during that trial? what happens is nbc news loses a judgment because they were able to talk about some unfairness on another branch of nbc news.

this can be very complicated. one chapter of the book talks about how i feel the focus of race relations as collateral damage. one group to fox news seems to like to cover is the new black counterparty. i was watching election coverage in november and on election day they seem to keep cutting back to this voting area in philadelphia, where this guy who was a member of the new black panther party is also volunteering to help people -- opening the doors so people could vote. i guess you might explain it if they have question, but he was 10 in the polling place, opening the door and standing as a volunteer. as far as i know, the only news outlet continually coming back to the polling place. why are we spending so much time

looking at the new black panther party? they are a small group, don't have minimum nurse. they've been criticized as a hate group. they are antiwhite. their problems at jewish people. they are a hate group in a lot of ways, but also are very small and don't have a lot of influence. fox news horror audience, target audience, the people they are super serving as mostly middle-class, mostly middle-aged , a little more than female and one of their greatest fears, scary black people. if you create a channel where you evoke that point of view and realize the culture of news coverage, one of the things to do is talk about greatest fears, that there is a black president

who secretly support service being supported by this antiwhite paper. whether or not it makes sense, whether there's any real context of it, whether it deserves that coverage. now this is fox nation company bought connected to fox news channel tends to be more extreme than the stuff you see on television. when president obama has a dinner at the white house and has like celebrities come along, all of a sudden it was defined a hip-hop or vq adversaries who is expected to create jobs and people were disappointed it did. i don't understand why hip-hop barbecue was supposed to create jobs. in fact, i don't understand why there's really only one rapper showed, who is jc. [laughter] you get a sense about the audience views dictate their

strategy. the brookings institution produced a big study that a foot out of the book and is part of that, they asked people whether or not they produce an equal chance that white people could be discriminated against because they're racist like people and people of color on 46% felt there was an equal chance that why people might be discriminated against because of their race as people of color. hardly ask people who watch fox news, the total jumped to 70%. so this is an audience that essentially doesn't believe in institutional racism, doesn't really believe racism is holding people of color back any more than anything else is holding a people back. so with the channel is going to speak to that audience, they will have the attitude as well.

decoding dog whistles on politics. another thing that is interesting is to find tough use event understood when i was giving a lecture. we used to whistle politics to talk about messages politicians put out than a failed ahead of most people in the audience, the rich the audience they want to move. one of the most famous examples might be the willie horton not created to support the candidacy of george h.w. bush when he was running against michael dukakis. it wasn't who committed another while he was out. the hatches a very scary looking black guy and says he was on the furlough and commit crimes and then note at the caucus the

program and can't allow us to go out. to the mainstream audience, it's an ad that says this guy supported a program that doesn't work. but to people who are frightened of black people committing violent crimes, there is another message there. this is a guy who's going to turn these dangerous black criminals loose in your neighborhood and it can be very effective. i talked to dave weikel about covering the republican primaries for president early last year and he said newt gingrich won the south carolina primary right after running it at the plate of the attacks have been making against president obama to have the same things recalled the foodstamp president. he had said earlier that year in january duquesne bridge said he was going to go to the naacp

convention and show them why they should value paychecks set of newspapers. let black people need to be told that my job is that of food stamps. those are messages meant to reach the people who might be predisposed to respond to them and he won the south carolina primary if you even are. so here's another question you might want to answer. that came out one point was a front runner for the republican nomination for president. this despite the fact he'd never been elected to an office before. this despite the fact he had a book out and seemed like maybe he was turning his candidacy into a book to her. i know how important it is to sell books, that despite the fact he said some really stuff in public and this was all before the arrest scandal that eventually ended his candidacy.

so given that, why buy some conservatives like irvin came at the top of the leaderboard for a while when i was six or seven or eight people running for president on the republican side woodcut somebody right here. >> because it makes him look like they don't have problem with someone like president obama, so they're not racist. >> a tea party and conservatives were accused of being racist. so what could be less precise? >> this sounds really bad, but when i thought he was running, i thought you was uncle tom, someone who cares like sidney poor ta that caters to the white audience because these online with their beliefs.

>> i will tell you number one i sympathize with you. i had that same reaction. but i don't want to do is associate black republican with this idea they might pinochle tom. i think it's possible to be a black person and a republican and have those views cannot be considered for trade racism they might have. i do think it's odd one of the central criticisms when he first read for president was he didn't have enough experience in a been a state senator and u.s. senator and now this guy has the possibility of winning the republican nomination and he hasn't been elected to anything. how is that possible? some conservatives like him because they talk about race the way they do. he doesn't believe racism holds black people back. he doesn't believe institutional racism is a problem. he believes people should work

hard and if they apply themselves, they'll be successful just i can. and these people can have their ideas further validated by a black eye. he talks about race the way they do. but unfortunately, some times but also again in the encouraging stereotyping of validating prejudice in a way that makes me very uncomfortable. the katrina effect. another part of the book talks about the katrina effect. i remember interviewing brian williams, the anchor for nbc news was still at new orleans not too long after katrina had impacted. he was grabbing that tape and taping a window and was a bit to commit and seemed to really so like he was the middle of some important reporting and that could be an exciting thing. so i was talking to him about

hurricane katrina and how the impact of the new orleans area had revealed all of the problems of poverty and raise and he said to be earnestly that if this does not start a national conversation on race and poverty, we will have not done our jobs. and i cut up fighters later inside i don't agree have that national conversation unless i was out of the country when it happened. she had to admit part of the problem was my audience would rather watch entourage. it's harder to get people engaged in these conversations. i also think the one reason why people don't understand the poor in america is because the news media is not covering poverty enough. i went to the project for excellence in journalism and they keep track of the top 50

news outlets in the country in what they report on. so i went to them and fatah have the suspicion that poverty doesn't get covered a lot. can you tell me how much of all the news stories these top 50 of us for whole year, how much poverty got covered in 2005, 2010 and 2011. the second 2009, 2% of the stories about poverty. bear in mind this is one year after the tremendous wealth on our economy and people were losing homes left and right, jobs left and right. 2% of the stories were centered on poverty. in 2010 and a critic of the number for the percentage of stories on poverty except to say it was a little bit about zero. that's how low applies. unfortunately news media doesn't cover poverty. much. but you have somebody like mitt romney speaking to wealthy donors and save 47% wants to get

free stuff for the government and are not going to vote, one reason he might say that l.a. people believe it is because the media has not told that about the poor. the working poor, 40% who don't pay federal income tax work at wal-mart, mcdonald's, ups or kircher story. maybe they have two jobs. it is taken of us are ready to bite you later how much work it is to get around what you don't have a car. sometimes the poor is hard work thank you very much. but people don't know that sometimes because the media doesn't tell us. to use as important sources spoke on why american pay welfare. a great professor at princeton university who wrote this book tried to dig it to why people are so -- people so reject the

word welfare. like if you asked people opinions about welfare, the catchall term that describes programs to help people of poverty. if you asked them about welfare, you'll get negative reaction. they have to say like lot of staff. one of thinks he found his media coverage may have associated people with welfare and a way that is encourage people to reject the term overall. he looked at coverage poverty and stories in 1967 to 1992 and 57% of the poor is general studies about poverty can have a general. black people were 57% that was twice the rate of black poverty

and in 1872 and 73, they were showing 75%. that happened out of a genuine alternate state decision to try to pick people of color in poverty more to talk about this issues. but ends up happening is black folks associate welfare beyond their proportion in these public programs. that unfortunately is people who want to dismiss them to turn away from a. i talk about to do the to rebound her. confirmation bias, which is a tendency to search for and interpret information in a way that conference preconception to statistical errors. if you start an experiment until you already know how it will

turn out, he'll mostly pay attention to the evidence to support the conclusion you are to have it bite out of disparate deep spirit. will he talk about prejudice and stereotypes, if you already know what somebody is like or what people -- the types of people are like, you only pay attention to evidence that supports that conclusion. confirmation bias is that they don't work and a lot of reported. observer bias is more interested than i thought about it like when i drive egg. if i'm driving to breaking the speed limit to drive a really fast covers because that way for an appointment early for work or the person in front of you striving to use over whatever. but if somebody else is driving fast at a time when i don't want to drive fast, that person is on

faith. it is attributed your own actions to cost, but blaming other people for their own misfortune. so if you're struggling to pay the bills, it's because it's a tough economy it hard to get a good paying job in this field is not a lot of opening. but other people have trouble paying their bills, they made a bad decision. they are not working hard enough. they are lazy. that is actor bias. what do they have a comment? our job as journalists is provided, taxed. often what happens with these distorted by prejudiced stereotypes is the context is missing or the context is distorted or confirmation bias too cold the next thing you know you've got an inaccurate account. how did my book book in its

name? my good friend, bill reilly. my goal was to reclaim the word. i feel like we have all of these thoughts in terms and concepts about race better of twisted. they operate at the edges of our consciousness. we adults almost without thinking of what i want to do is make them explicit. i want people to talk about than, contemplate them to decide whether or not they make sense. and so for me, reclaiming the word is getting people to do that. if i could get people to take one of the great achievements of the civil rights era is open racism is mostly rejected now. you can't just walk up to be a colleague at work and have people clap. so that it do what you get people to think about stuff in

the open i consider it, bb so reject it. so that is pretty much a presentation. if you guys have any questions or comments, i'd be happy to entertain them right now. do we have some questions? [applause] >> i think you touched on this briefly a little bit, but i'm primarily prim protests and the high time i have understanding those commentators are better served to have this sort of opinion on that sort of fade and people that begin careers as journalists and continue to be journalists. can you comment on this culture of cable news of having these

opinions? >> sure. forgive me if there's a new fox news fans of the audience, but i'm going to blame fox news for this, too. they said 95% of what happens to be media somebody making money or losing money. when the fox news channel was first developed, the idea was how do you compete with cnn? cnn has bureaus, the place everybody turns when it going on, reporting from iraq. how do you compete with? the way you compete if you don't report the news. you talk about the news that everybody else already does. as media gets more and more fractured or more were put out on smartphones and websites, is four more likely by the end of the day at 7:00 and 8:00, 9:00 on everybody knows the news of the day.

you need somebody who can talk in a really compelling way at the fox does really well. now all of a sudden a tip for getting people to watch cable news show when the news is not beckham howling. you can't talk about the news of us to express an opinion. so that's why we are where we are. some people will say these people are not journalists, which is what msnbc often says all sharpton is not a journalist, rachel mondo, but you know what, they are sitting at a desk but it got the graphic and they're telling us what happened that day. frankly they are hoping to give them the same credibility. so is journalism -- you can use

that. so free. is >> thank you for your top. i'm going to go ahead with trepidation and that's the big question on media that's been on my mind for a while. he talked about how to narrowcasting, to specific beaches is what an art creates stereotypes in our media and culture. do you think this is for journalists on to return a bit more broadcast and that larger audiences, sub they considered more objective or accurate, whatever that means. bertie stereotypes perpetuate themselves of old media as well in new media has the advantage of vc perspective that would add mainstream are marginalized old

radio? there that are referred to as said earlier which is 95% of somebody's making money or losing money. going back ishow they not going to happen because can't that untrue money that way anymore. nbc is getting the ratings that put it below univision in the 1849 viewers. so we are reaching the point where podcasting is crazily hard to do. i don't think that's going to come back. this whole book is premised on the idea that i'm not going to be able to convince these media outlets to stop doing what they are doing because they make money doing it. i don't know if you saw the project for excellence in journalism released its state of the news media report. i don't know if you looked at the profit cable news channels for making, but fox news that

$1.8 billion in cnn that 1.1 william dollars. they going that. what i'm trying to do is convince you guys come at the audience, to change how you see what they are doing it when you change how you respond to what they are doing, they have to change what they are doing. >> sub in the audience could change what is marketed to us. >> the great thing about the way media is going, the great thing about the fragmentation of media is it takes power from the gatekeepers and distributes down. the gatekeepers have less control and you have much more control. we were just talking about this a second ago pier one mash, that phenolic airtime you better watch what i was on cbs because there was no other way to see it

unless you are lucky they reran a six-month later. yes young people, that happens. you couldn't ever recorded on vhs tenures of 15 interceptor was on television. now as to the point if you didn't see the academy awards tonight aired on that sunday night, they had it on the internet less than a day later and you can watch all the clips people put on youtube 10 minutes after the show was over. all of a sudden everybody in the audience is much more freedom and power over that presentation. they can take seth mcfarlane's joke and put it on youtube and everybody can put their comments about why they think it's cool or sexist or whatever at abc can ask you to take any video and they don't have control over that process. my only hope is to convince you guys to make them change what they're doing.

anymore questions? >> the reelection of barack obama and light of your topic, is it a signal people are paying more attention paid to the people? >> i actually think it will be interesting to see what happens in 2014 and whether we decide landmark change in the electorate or whether we have to elect truths. i thought it was an interesting idea. but we had a presidential election involving barack obama, more young people come out. more people of color come out and vote for the democrats. one of the reasons why a lot of predictions for the election were off is people assumed those

groups would not come out in the same numbers they did in 2008 at what happened is they came out even more. so they did better with women. the young people they had four years ago, they had hispanics, they had like people and all of a sudden, the predictions were off because everybody showed up the same way they did four years ago and some of them even more. but we have an off year election where barack obama is on the ballot, while those same people show up to vote? if they don't, the people in 2010 elect the house of representatives will be the people voting for mobile older, whiter. 2014 will give us a lot. we may have two different electorates. if you run in a presidential election are facing a diverse and younger electorate than you would face when people are frankly just don't pay

attention. >> i think you addressed this in your book, but i was wondering how the larger media discourse is the changing demographics of america about what will happen when whites become a minority. ..

and assigned them by race so what are some edge wear white and which were nonwhite and hispanic and which percentage are asian and black and hispanics i think were at 5% even though they are 16% of the population. there is no other group that is represented to that level. so, i think what we are going to hit is a time when there is no ethnic group that is a majority in the u.s.. once hispanics grow enough we will reach a point where no one really has the majority. but that doesn't speak to who has power. and white males will still control corporate power in this country. they was dill run the television and they will still run the radio. they will still run the newspaper and the magazine industry. so what white males think is important. it will still have more weight

because they will still control a lot of those institutions and in fact we saw that in south africa where we had 25 million black people and a much smaller number of whites but because they controlled the economy and controlled the important industry, they controlled the country. i feel like opera. >> yes. >> only people of a certain age will get that job. >> i'm interested in how you view jon stewart and stephen colbert as a critic? we have a lot of discussion and classes here about how he claims he is a comedian bet there are people and we have had polls of people who think otherwise. >> @, yeah. i am just a comedian, i'm just a court chester but they have all

these people who get their news from "the daily show." one thing i will say about him and stephen colbert is they have the most brilliant media critics working in media today. they have an unerring ability to find the weak spot of the media. that said that stewart did about how cable channels leave it there. they get to the end and they say we have to leave it there. you are 24-hour news channel. what do you mean we have to leave it there? no, we have to leave it there, we have to leave it there. i love the way they dissect the median one of the things i've noticed about "the daily show" though is i really think leading up to the last election and after the of last election they have become more partisan believe it or not. i think at one point jon stewart seemed to feel an op occasion to make sure that he was taking shots at the other guys, at the democrats and then at some point

it felt like things changed on the show and i'm a regular viewer of the show and i watch it almost every night. i don't know, we hear now there is a movie during the summer and he's going to take a hiatus from the show and john oliver is going to host it for a while so maybe it's a sign that he is getting a little bit tired of it and wants to try some other things. i used to defend the daily show because people said it's just a a -- for democrats but even though he is a set of values, he believes in the democratic message more, he still gives everybody a hard time equally. when the democrats do something he will talk about that too but i feel like that's changed a bit i noticed the last interview that he did he wrote about it in the newspaper. he did an interview with barack obama right before the election and it was essentially a soft all interview.

he didn't challenge him very much and then i went back and watch the interview that he did with barack obama before the 2008 election, not before the 2008 election. it was before the 2012 election and he was honest. he was basically the liberal challenging barack obama to say how he didn't live up to these promises that he made us in the difference to me was obvious. that is what i was seeing last year. and i felt like you know that is the problem. and the other thing with colbert in "the daily show" is that they don't have to show the other side. they don't have to be -- and that is what makes journalism boring sometimes and not as hard-hitting as you like or doesn't get into people's faces. that whole thing, we have got to be fair and that i think is always going to put us one step behind because they can say whatever they want and they can

look like they are there but we have to actually be there. >> i just wanted to ask how you think reality television shows get into some of the things you are talking about and race baiting? >> thank you so much. i didn't even give you any money for that but it's in the book about reality television. yeah well obviously reality television i think is a way for tv producers to present some really awful stereotypes that they are showing in real life. the first thing you should understand about any kind of television is that you do not see a professional television show that you are not meant to see. yes reality shows too. some of them are scripted as any entertainment product. so when you see something on a reality show you are meant to

see it the way you are seeing it i think a lot of times these reality shows, like they just did a column for the newspaper about how i think reality shows stereotype white people in ways they could never get away with if they did it with hispanic people or they did it with black people. if they did a show like myrtle manor but they did it in the hood, and the projects and they were showing a guy with 10 children, black man with 10 children it would be shut down in a minute. but white folks don't react that way when their own stereotypes are used to fuel tv shows that depicts them so that i know c. and honey boo-boo. oh my god. i would be at their front doorstep every day documenting what's going on. they made. on good morning america at 6:00 a.m..

just keep the list and want to once a gives to a certain point just shut down. taken into custody. it's over. but to be serious i really do think these reality shows like the producers would say we are just showing real people. we are just showing real people. we are not satirizing the south by having somebody with thick accents and putting subtitles like they are speaking some other language. come on. it's a southern accent. you know, but you touched a nerve i guess. >> in terms of the black stereotypes in the white stereotypes in reality tv shows what do you think the differences between the sticking power of white stereotypes in the sticking power of black stereotypes in today's media? >> i think what happens is that a lot of times white people

don't think they have a racial culture, you know? so they don't -- there isn't a response to the stereotypes in the same way that there is a response about black people and people of color. what i always say is that the way, the best way to subjugate people is to make them subjugate themselves. make them keep themselves in line. i may get in trouble for saying that but i feel like women in america are the best example of that. over the years we have top women to limit their own thinking about what they can achieve with or without a man. and so we don't have to pay women less because they will do it themselves. and for people of color that has happened for many many years. we had many many years of limiting stereotypes that taught everybody including people of color that their options were

limited. and now at least we recognize that is a mechanism of oppression. i think white people don't see it that way yet. so we can have this litany of stereotypes with white people and especially southerners that circulating the media and get huge ratings. even the people on the show know what they are doing. you can look at some of the people on the show and they are like no, i'm looking at the camera. i wouldn't really be dressed like this but they are paying the $800,000, you know? so what one point i think they will get tired of it and enough people will talk about what's happening that it will be exposed. right now we are in some things in terms of racial terms and not used to seeing other things in rational -- racial terms. but stereotypes are enduring. as much as we know about how

stereotyping works we still see a lot of it involving people of color too. and we see a lot of luck folks consuming those messages. watching those shows and enjoying those shows even though some of the images in it are really damaging. we have somebody here. let me know when i have run out of time because i will talk all day. >> most of the discussion is focused on tv but some of the same things behind these channels are going into print and the area of journalism. what do you think about the future without? >> yeah, i don't know. you know i think the challenges are much different. print challenges are figuring out how to make money with an outdated and do some decorating

economic system, moneymaking system. i don't know that i see -- the problem i see with stereotyping, we cover race like an episodic event rather than covering it regularly. so if you watch, if you watch the nightly news or pick up a newspaper you are always going to see a report on the stock market. you're always going to hear about what congress is up to add your eyes going to hear about what they'd resident did that when you see a 12 part series that we spent years working on and here it is we are going to talk about race and we don't talk about raise for another month or two years. we do that with politics too. so i think some of the problems with stereotyping is the same thing. we do see on line these outlets transferring.

the approach is now being mirrored on the drudge report and news.org and "msnbc" adding to that. also on "the huffington post" you will see that on media matters. so that is migrating on line as well but i think print problem is that feels like it's old newy are not making a lot of them anymore. last question. >> i wanted to ask you about the whole genre of allowing citizens to comment on youtube videos or news stories and so on and there is also an alum professor at the university of oklahoma and i wondered.

one of the arguments she has made is the citizen democracy is allowing people to say incredibly racist things in on line spaces. so the people who could not respond to mash some of them shouldn't have. do you know what i mean? they couldn't do it and i wonder what you thought about this is doing for race relations in this sphere of the suppose of opening up of this space? >> what i think is you can't just focus on comments. it's just one part of the on line experience. and commenting, you can comment without attaching an amenity to it so people say a lot of ugly awful stuff because they want to be provocative or they know someone will hold them accountable for did they just like hurting people or whatever. they do it as they are anonymous but