.. i had an addiction, and today there is another addiction as to the campaign contributions and they need an intervention and it is the public intervention. a beautiful place they can make it even better so i address a lot of issues in the book. i get to spend time of my

granddaughter today and go to india, i have a chapter i told you. i get to do radio stations. a lot of good people like tom hartman and to the right or the left or the middle they get their voice out there and tell people a story on what is going on in their government. it's important. the journalistic side of this is critical. so i am happy i met a person. unhappy and angry and i want to get everybody but there are some things i had to tell. it's going to cause some heartburn, i understand that. but as my grandmother always said this too shall pass you just didn't tell me it takes a this long. i want to thank everybody for coming. [applause] >> next on book tv victor navasky, publisher and meritor for the nation presents his thoughts on the power of political cartoons. this is a little under an hour.

>> thank you. it's true, i had to come all the way from next door to be here. it's the ideal invitation. i'm honored to be at the honors college. this to me is an experiment. you are the victims of the experience. as you may have gathered from the introduction, i am everything except a word person and i've brought up in the world of words and one of lessons to me and problems for me putting together this book was i discovered shortly that word people don't have -- that art and images kim, on occasion, be more powerful than words. how do you deal with that on words? that is the question and the

dilemma and you will see in some of these pictures i had to deal with. let me start by just reading you the beginning from the beginning of the "the art of controversy," because it tells how i got into this project and sort of forecasts what is to come. but before i get there, the first quote in the book is one picture is worth 10,000 words. a chinese proverb perhaps wrongly attributed to the confucius' but if he didn't say it, he should have. [laughter] the last quote in the front is a caricature is putting the face of a joke on the body of the truth. that was joseph conrad, very brilliant and very profound. so, and something like 30 years at the nation, first as the magazine's editor than has publisher come only once did the staff march in my office with a petition demanding that we not publish something, and that

something was a cartoon, a caricature, and the nation as you know is a bastion of word people. but at the time i thought the staff anger had to do primarily with the fact that they thought the cartoon question was politically incorrect or in the argot of the de notte pc. no matter that the character was the late david levine perhaps the leading practitioner and no matter that his character was a powerful work of art in deed that was the problem. it all started with a phone call from david, whom i had known as a former contributor to monocle which cecilia mengin and her great introduction, which we call the leisurely quarterly of the satire that meant it came out twice a year. and i had founded a student at the yale law school in the 1950's. by now, david was known to his followers as one of the great fashionable realist painters. he was known to the media and the intellectual community as

the genius responsible for the artfully witty but wicked characters that helped define the look of the prestigious new york review of books since its founding in 1963. david called because he had done a caricature of henry kissinger on assignment for "the review," which the editors felt was too strong and they would publish the character leader to be david wasn't so sure of that and wanted to publish it right away. the cartoon as he told me showed kissinger in bed on top and the world in the form of a naked woman underneath she had a globe where her head should have been and kissinger was screwing hurt, quote king david, under an american flag blanket. were we interested? david, i said, it will get me in all sorts of trouble. but of course i'm interested. why will it get you in trouble, he asked.

i said it will get me and all kind of trouble with our staff. i don't know, i said. the criteria of arrived an hour later and it was expected and here i described the cartoon that rather than describe it i'm going to show it to you. [laughter] two hours later, this to me is one of the most brilliant cartoons. two hours later the petition landed on my desk signed by 25 people in the office the life of employ only 23. many of the signatures were followed by little comments, sexists, why isn't he doing it to the third world i called an office wide meeting and i told everyone that it was important to keep three things in mind. first, although i took the staff concerns very seriously, there would be no vote at the end because you can't or at least

shouldn't decide questions of aesthetics by majority vote luckily for me know when asked why not. [laughter] second, this work had been offered to us on a take-it-or-leave-it basis so while anyone was free to say what he or she pleased suggests to change the drawing would have no affect. and third, because i had already told levine that we intended to use the drawling, the magazine could change its mind. i thought it was a better decision not to use it would have censorship failure or not. the most articulate staff objection to levine's drawing was that the nation was supposed to fight against stereotypes' and this cartoon reinforce the stereotype that sex was dirty and something that an active male on top does to a passive woman on bottom. my favorite moment came when - did it because we six

christopher hitchens said, and a white suit and all this, said he thought the cartoon was not an act of sex but act of rape. kissinger ravaging the world. but if you look at the woman's hands, replied the young woman who made the point about stereotypes', it seems to be grabbing the mattress with what could be called a grip of passion. at this point the white suited christopher and his upper-class british accent leaned over and grabbed the young woman by her hand and said trust me it isn't the grip of passion, so there it was. [laughter] david pointed out -- i asked david to join us and david pointed out that as a caricature, he dealt with stereotypes' that were a problem and the ones rendering, for example, members of a minority race. how do you make a comment on racism without falling into a trap? nevertheless, it's the

cartoonist's job to play off of stereotype that a majority of readers and viewers will recognize. david being david also said all the wrong things. when asked why the man had to be on top, for example, he replied in a room that included people of various sexual preference is i'm just showing what normal people do. after he had spent two hours on the grid being shown no difference i asked him if he was sorry he came. he said he'd been doing this work for 25 years and never had as a series of a discussion and so for that he was grateful. he had gotten some new insight and problematics of cartooning but added if i had to do it again i wouldn't change a line. i think it is one of the strongest pieces that i have done. and my thought at the time is that beyond the political objections, the staff's emotional reaction, which i saw as an over reaction was probably a delayed protest over my general failure to consult as much as i might have for my

generation will insensitivity to matters of sexual politics. looking back, i can see that and underestimating the power of levine's lubber image to promote, i may have internalized the views of many art critics or historians and artists who, themselves, have over the years dismissed cartoons from caricature as fundamentally not serious, inconsequential and irrelevant, marginal, harmless, frivolous, b9, immoral and silly but it was not until 2004 when the newspaper famously published a dozen cartoons, and here i describe what happened when the newspaper published these cartoons of the prophet mohammed that i thought to focus on the power of cartoons as cartoons. after all, from asia to europe, hundreds of thousands of muslims took to the streets to protest embassies that were shut down

and ambassadors would recall in pakistan protests burned flags worldwide, more than 100 people were killed, another 500 were injured. danish goods were boycotted and the cartoonists were forced to go into a hiding with the million dollar prize to on their head. suffice it to say the emotional response of muslims had rolled over to the danish in retrospect may be suspect that the nation staff reaction to levine's kissinger khartoum had as much to do with the medium as it did the message. i could go on, but the point that's how i got involved in this book. and as i started to -- i started to go back in the past and research would have happened to the cartoonists and characters in the past and i discovered that he was thrown into prison which is news to me and his publisher was also thrown into prison. i'm going to show you this is something that the publisher

that is also a caricature showed the king as famously as a pair which was also known as a fat head, and it was an insulting image the king had and he was put on trial for this khartoum and its his testimony of the trial is worth reading but i can't find it so i'm not going to read it to you. i'm going to show you what he himself did in his khartoum of louis gargantua and he got thrown into prison for two years for doing this cartoon of the king in the shape of a pear. i'm finding the testimony because it is worth hearing. let me just go back it's not

just of these guys that got in trouble, more recently the leading palestinian cartoonist was murdered on the streets of london for his cartoons, and they still haven't figured out whether it was the mossad who did it because of his anti-israeli cartoons or yasser arafat, who had done some insulting cartoons of arafat who were said to have commissioned someone to assassinate him. so all the way up, whether it is punishment by censorship, punishment by prison, punishment by your name at, cartoonists has been singled out and punished over the years. but they are dealing with humor. so here is the way that he defended his rendition of louis

philippe. this is at the first trial he says the first looks like louis philippe, but the last looks like the first, yet this last one is a pear. where are you to draw the line? will you condemn the first drawing? in that case you should have to condemn the last as well since this resembles the first. that is the king. can i help it if his majesty's face is like a pear? your sentence a man two years in jail because he has a pear that demonstrates a similarity with the king? in this case you would have to conduct all characters that depict a handed it is narrow at the top and abroad at the bottom. in this case i can promise you you will have more than enough to do. as artists will find a great amount of pleasure and

demonstrating this proportion in a variety of broad circumstances. then see how you will have raised the royal dignity. see what reasonable limits you will have placed on liberty. the liberty of the crayon, the liberty as sacred as others because it supports thousands of artists and printers. liberty which is my right and you cannot surprise me of, even if i was the one to use it. and this is one of many different ways in which cartoonists have attempted to deal with attempts to stop them from doing what they know how to do. so one of the questions that i ask myself when i was doing this is what's going on here, why do people get so upset about this so-called trivial medium. indictment the introduction to the book and the structure of the book is a long introduction

about 75 pages bayh examine 3g aires on what i call the contant theory people get upset because of the content and wonder what else is going on there. the second they get upset because the image and they get upset because the way the cartoon functions as a stimulus and the brain is the response and has to do with neuroscience which has conducted some experiments on that. so let me say a little word about each of these. and then the artists themselves have their own series. this is the work of a great british cartoonist named ralph steadman, and he has a series of his own, which is to me a quite original and important observation, and it goes back to the problem of writing -- of using words to describe pictures

and steadman's work is easily identifiable like poetry it resists paraphrases. in fact, when asked when does he see cartoons derive their power, he says, quote, the only thing of value is that you cannot say -- it's what you cannot say. that is where the drawing is so important and that is the value. you can do something with a drawing you couldn't say with words. and he also said apropos our experience with david levine, no matter what words you would use to describe kissinger's policies in the caribbean if the drawing came about because of the report on the committee and that kissinger had chaired, you couldn't capture what he captured with that picture. another example of this that has

flown into the history books is another levine picture of lyndon johnson showing his scar in the form of the vietnam and it's just one of things about the curtains and caricatures which is that they can live on long after their initial exposure and the of a permanency in the culture the words sometimes do and sometimes don't they are like poetry and debose resist paraphrase but also capture a lot in a very short way. so how does one deal with this question -- let me find this next -- how does one deal with this question of using words to answer a cartoon? i finally found the answer to

that question that i just put to you. but the answer isn't in words. here is the answer of how one deals with a paradox of using words to answer a cartoon. this is steinberg. it says a lot, but i can't say what it says because i don't have the words to say at. so that's it. now, if one takes the first series of the contant theory that people get upset because the content, the most famous american cartoonist was thomas nast, who stimulated -- this is one of nast's drawings -- there are a lot of them here -- based on the people's money. they are all pointing. he famously said of nast that -- he said i don't care what they write about me, but get rid of those damn pictures.

he understood something that was very true about nast and about the force of these pictures. and there's a great irony and it's fitting and proper he was caught and brought to justice by the spanish customs officials not recognize him from nast's depictions and the irony of irony is where the cartoons and other cultures were imprisoned in their artistic assaults on the powerful the corrupt. in nast's case it was the targets that went to prison. but before they did, they tried to buy him with an art scholarship. he studied art and kept expressing interest and they kept raising the price and finally got up to something like , they got tens of thousands of dollars to study art. and before he told them thanks but no thanks, and this is a fitting tribute it seems to me.

besides the contant theory, there is of course the image theory, which goes all the way back to me to the old testament speaking of the muslims know brave images forbidden in the tenth amendment. so come here to me i am going to show you three or four pictures from the masses. i was aware of this jesus christ reword back when they tried to put him in prison for doing that. they sued the masses and they eventually put it out of business. they claimed violated the espionage act. but i had seen art young's pictures when i grew up. my father showed me this one. bedbugs was the comment on the

pictures and i had come to add my year -- this is the perfect soldier -- i had come to admire the cartoons and the masses. what i did not understand when i went to the cartoon collection at ohio state university was where they have the full issues of the masses when you go through them issue by issue. at the pictures overwhelm the words it's as if the illustrated the pictures that they have the power that is startling and i want to read you from the manifesto because it expresses the joy they took in doing what they do and i love the manifest and here is what they said. a revolutionary and not a reform magazine, a magazine with a sense of humor and no respect for the respectable.

arrogant searching for the true causes a magazine directed against rigidity and a dog must wherever it is found printing what is needed for the moneymaking press, and magazine whose final policy is to do as it pleases and reconciliate nobody but the thing is it did it with pictures and art and a better than anyone else at the time. so i want to go from there to show you one more, to give another artist different from stead in and different from the content. and different from the image. this is the artist david low who did the amazing portraits of adolf hitler and every time one came out, hitler would hit the

roof and have an effect -- have a fit and his explanation for why. in 1928 he found the generous article in the british journal of medical psychology in which they had observed the task was to record the character, the essence of a man in the heroic sense. the characters had an opposing goal he didn't seek the perfect forum, but the perfect deformity to penetrate to the outer court appearance for the inner being and its ugliness. what we find the comment. what he basically said is that

dictators, the reason hitler got so upset by these drawings is that the dictators don't mind being portrayed as bloody monster who are putting down everybody and showing how powerful they are. what they really object to is being portrayed as they are. but here is one example, the famous cartoon rendezvous as you can see it. so it's a second theory. the second is what i think of as a neuroscience theory and this looks at the cartoon as the stimulus and the brain response

and this one there wasn't only a new field of neuroscience at purports to explain the way that affects the brain there was an article sunday in their review section by the neuroscience from columbia but there is a new field and i'm suspicious of it but nevertheless they conducted experiments. let me read you about one of them at this is -- this experiment led to something they called for shifting affect -- the peak shift of fact and it's from experiments and because these checks are entirely dependent on their mothers for food when they see a yellow beak

with a dhaka at the end like their mothers they beg for food by picking up the dhaka. it took the nero scientists to discovered when the checks are exposed to a fake beak and the more red dots the more they peck. it comes as a result of shifting the stimulus more red dots and hence the peak shift. the difference in this phenomenon and cartoons and caricatures is on the area of the brain involved in facial recognition. this is no surprise since ^ caricatures have one face to another. then you're a scientist thinks it works on the same principle as the peak shift effect.

this is him speaking. consider the way in which a skilled cartoonist introduces a caricature of a famous face say richard nixon. but he does unconsciously is take the average faces subtract the average from xm to get the difference between nixon's face and all the others and then amplify the difference to introduce a caricature. the final result of course is a drawing that is even more nixon like than the original. they argue that if they had an art gallery who they would hang a long stick with red dots and pay millions of dollars for its. it's interesting because the great cartoonist once and said nixon had looked like his policies that he was to cartoonist's what marilyn monroe

was to sex. that's the kind of thing. so, i want to quote you one thing and then tell you juan. he is both a critic and psychologist psychiatrist. as he put it, the caricatures is in the business of mythologizing the world. translation by linking the mythical, they create the fusion and that amalgam that seems so convincing to the emotional mind. example you can call the cabinet minister, but to make the charge visually in the famous primm minister which i have in the

book but not up here on the crown it is something else again we've worked at other people's theories and i want to show you other cartoons in the book but if you want to know why will tell you the stories a cartoonist got into a lot of trouble and this is another cartoonist that got into trouble. in the community he did this when the book came out saying abraham lincoln might be gay and he was attacked for suggesting that to be gay meant that there was a woman inside of your body and he wrote it very smart response which i can read you if you are interested but that is of course we all know who gave nixon his 5:00 shadow and here he comes now nixon coming out of the sewer. and again this is one of those

permanent images that as much as anything helped bring next-gen down. watergate was part of it but this contributed to it and here is this cartoon has to do with mohammed. at the time he said they caused the furor of "the new york times" article saying that they were not going to publish the characters -- caricatures because you can find them on the internet, and because of that there was no need to publish them and you can describe them and look them up if you need to. at the time i thought that was all on because you have to experience them in order to understand them and to describe to them is the opposite of what a work of art or cartoon does. but when it came time where are we going to include them in the book or not my publisher was

worried that bookstores -- people would come into bookstores and that the book sellers were at risk that they might be attacked. they were worried that amazon wouldn't carry the book. so, we had long discussions about this. and in the art of controversy, what i do is i print the reason i give you is an assignment which of the following is true, that these characters are not included here because you can find them on the internet anywhere, b, because the publisher was worried and as on wouldn't carry the book, but c farby it for me to put the lives of other people what risk who were booksellers, d, because pointing to the to printing the caricatures had done a better job than these cartoonists and

the correct answer -- and then e and f was something else and all of the above answer. i do include the cartoon that is you see the artist's hand on this huge pencil and what he is writing is i must not depict mohammed. i must not draw mohammed. i must not draw -- he writes this 100 times and by the end he has drawn muhammed. that says it better than by showing itself. those are some of the issues that come up in the course of compiling this book and i want to leave you with a question that i still have for myself and then take your questions, so i can answer them. namely i am a person who is a card-carrying member of the american civil liberties union. i am a follower of believe in the power of the better

argument. i began censorship and i believe that the way to deal with that idea as is with better ideas. and then along comes a series of choices where the pictures are more powerful than the words. they really are. and if they aren't, they are received as if they were. what do you do about that? does that change the case for free speech? does it put it in a different perspective? those are the issues i raised in the art of controversy. thank you for hearing me out. [applause] so, have i answered all questions? yes, sir. >> you want me to go back to

that? you want to know the story that went with it? okay. okay. just a second. well, the basic fact is that bob grossman who is a world-class cartoonist wrote the article that said this new book could come out. and this image in planted itself in his head. let me read you what he wrote about it and what he said to the people that were upset by him so, we heard from lots of people who was a regular contributor to

the nation and a friend who says you just don't get it. that cartoon is something like out of a time warp. the long ago disproven notion that a man that was a man really wants to be a woman and is truly extraordinarily from another era and by letting grossman's reply stand as the only responsible magazine editor and they just don't get it. they think about grossman and the decision to run at it seems inarguable that the character was an image rather than words. how could it have been otherwise is what raised the temperature and here is what grossman road to.

when i read the review in "the new york times" for abraham lincoln, the words lincoln ran through my mind rendering me helpless. and the impoverished mental landscape cartoonist is what passes for the true inspiration. i knew that the men are not necessarily a bearded lady but that wouldn't prevent me from having my laugh. or so i thought. malae hereby apologize to anyone that i've offended. somebody asked me about the action of the picture. a was a contemporary symbol of lincoln although now i've read that he may not have split any rails and somehow i felt that it would make my picture a little more edgy. so, these are tough calls. and there we are. yes, sir.

>> i'm wondering about the more recent phenomenon how would you feel about the idea. i saw all over facebook and parts of the blogosphere are around 2012 or so during the election still wondering if these kinds of quips have a similar sort of power along with the image macrothat is images with text like a picture of a bunch of people than the corporate board room laughing saying i know, then i said the supply side economics actually works or something like that. >> i think it is a good point, and i think that you are right, there are traces that become symbolic of much larger complex social issues. but they sometimes touch the nerve because they summarize it

so precisely, and the visualization of that and the ability to conceptualize these images is a talent that infuriates people because if they do not agree with you because it strikes them as unfair and the fact that it dips in the sometimes dealing with steve issues compounds the problem nevertheless that is what i think helps give the explosive powers to this medium. but thanks for that observation. yes. >> i wonder what your sense of experience where do you find the best cartoon today? what source would you go to for the most original? >> i go to my grandchildren. i go to the new yorker, which is one of the last places that --

the new director in the book i have the problematic covered that they ran during the obama's first campaign where it shows michele and obama doing the fist pump and the cartoonist whose a talented cartoonist thought he was sodomizing the character a lot of readers to get to be a statement that obama azar terrorist and the editor david had to apologize for it. on a couple of occasions lavery and explanations to cover by art spiegelman, some of which i have in here. to me, whenever you feel you have to run an explanation of a cartoon, it is a problem. a double problem because they should make their statement and what the readers and viewers

figure out what they mean. if you know and suspect that they might be misunderstood, that is one of the fact that it didn't help tina or the new yorker and save it from the criticism it drew attention to the fact they put a paragraph saying that that is one of the places that they go. they did a lot of cartoons, some of which were pretty funny and course access to. they don't do it anymore and the gift that they have to do it there is a magazine called the reel list doubled from a great cartoons. there was a whole bunch of

yonder up-and-coming cartoonists and characters -- caricatures the first one of which couldn't been happier and the lesser of which said it the author is to be faulted it's because of what he put out and when he left out were all of these great number who operate some of them on paper and some of them on line, some of them and new media and the art isn't going away. the art of controversy -- >> a lot of what you have shown now isn't shown because of the

increased awareness of better off and worse of political correctness what is the future of cartooning? it seems to me that they are very wary of striking that danger does no to. >> many conventional old fashioned cartoonists who by definition are not conventional people they were worried that it's a disappearing profession and there were fewer and fewer people that make their living from old-fashioned cartoons. i agree with you not for better or worse for the political correctness to make your statements to the world whether you are a cartoonist or politician or anything else but the language counts and you have to take the consequences if you

use language that is offensive to other people and there are some problems there. for example, bob gross men who did the a blank in khartoum was an old monocle cartoonist. he was starting out and he was a reader out of college was an assistant to the new yorker cartoon editor and he would take some of the cartoons that were used and he would never draw a black person because he didn't want to be in the business of drawing fat lips and stereotypes of black people and contributing to this problem. but he then came up with an idea for a comic strip about a black shoeshine boy that says the magic word and turned it into a non-violent superman and the magic word kept changing from booker t. washington to the modern jazz quartet. there was a very funny construct and he managed to draw black folks in a way that was not

stereotypical so there were ways around it and it's there as a problem and as a line that when one goes over it goes over apparel. >> is the market a free society to allow people that engage in this kind of political cartooning and the idea is to provoke the cartoons and images can become very dangerous and we think about cartoons of the characters for example in world war ii how that incite hatred and violence he and i wonder if you could comment on that. >> i'm sorry if i didn't show it. somehow it didn't find its way onto the slide show but i have in the book the cartoon humor which was worse and they would run with noses and slobbering and fat and all of the -- and

these images were on the covers and in those days these covers would be on every street corner. and they said the image of the issue for germans who were not jews and they contribute to that think ultimately for the terrible things that happened there. and interestingly, the editor named joel stryker hooley mengin in the book was the only noncombatant that was condemned to death at marburg and was executed. and i do not believe in capital punishment, but if it's the law and you have to do it, they also should have executed who did the cartoons themselves. so, i do -- i don't think that you have to run everything. i think there are matters of case and a judgment the same way there are editorial matters. i have a presumption on behalf of publication despite the fact

it offends people but there are lines and it's important to recognize that and cases you don't want to go beyond them. it's an interesting case to itself because if you know that a whole constituency is deeply offended but you are defending their religion it seems to me they do not have the right to insist other people obey their religion but they're comes the time when needlessly disrespecting it you should bear the consequences of that so it's a complicated issue. >> [inaudible] >> some sort of political correctness. it's as if the left had a hammer lock on our imagery. it's not true. what's wrong with the cartoon is that it is fundamentally false

that it has nothing to do with homosexuality. it's bad. again, not because i'm offended, but because this is the work of an end at tinker. the published doesn't exempt you from the right to be criticized and the interest that the predisposition to publish what you've done. 95% of what has been written you choose to publish what you think is the smartest and most insightful and therefore the witty view of the world. this is rubbish. it is just not true. >> i eighth worked seven years at least might. we wouldn't run its because the guy is a bonehead and it seems to me the notion we offended people as if you are brave for manifesting the hack work and cliche. >> i should confess i graduated from the nation by the time this was published but i was happy to

defend not just the right to publish it but the decision to publish it and although i agree with the description of what it means to be de and funny, nevertheless i didn't think that he had the right to do this i thought he did something the was startling and may want to stop and look of what is going on here but i did understand when you're saying and i respect the people that disagree with us on these lines. >> the tricky thing in my experience is it becomes an arguable and you can't argue when they are defining that it's funny and ultimately what you run or put on the air depends on it being funny but that in

itself isn't enough it has to be funny and it has to be true. it's just not true and it seems to me it has to be both. >> what i do in the buck i ron a lot of letters about that some of which i agree with you with some of which don't. >> i'm not saying that but i would be interested in your comments. i'm not going to burden you or anyone else with the letters but interested in your comments and -- >> i have a question. i know that you had at least one character done a few feet to -- caricature done of view. what did that feel like? >> i had to argue with my publisher that i should have a

photograph but i pushed to have one by david ralph levine. it's good to be done by levine that he might have done things that were offensive to me and didn't. but i have been a caricature on a number of occasions and i take it as flattery. the interesting thing is that the people that i would regard as the worst politico come these cartoonists go after them and they caricature them and then politicians want to buy them and hang them on wall. i don't think that is true about ralph steadman's stuff. i think that he is ablaze and smart and in touch with some ultimate truths, so there is a place that they don't want to go do that.

>> [inaudible] thinking about the other side which is not to say they are separate entirely but for instance the right-wing extremist cartoons which i really can't think of any right now but we have so many controversy issues like climate change and to place at all these issues that are so contentious and their must be brave cartoonist's on the other side and i thinking if you have these powerful cartoons coming out from the right wing extremists, who whims the better artist or how do you answer those? >> the short answer is i don't know the answer to that question but i would think that the better artist has something to

do about it but the smarter and more profound thinker has something to do with it and nothing would make me more interested among my own failures of a boxing fan fantasy and the olympics of cartoonists against each other on both sides of the issues. the knowing that there are more than two sides of the issue doesn't mean that both sides are right. >> we have time for one more question. >> here we go, sir. >> during the course of your interesting talk, my mind was wandering along the lines of has the meaning of the word cartoon changed and who were the first cartoonists? does the word khartoum, do they

really describe what a cartoon is? >> good question and in my research i found he was said to have done the first caricature of the pope have a little bit on the history of the word but i don't have faith in my own knowledge of where it came from and i think it's going to -- the meaning of that word will change as what we call the characters -- caricatures change. good question. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. [applause] >> is there a nonfiction author or book that you would like to see feature on book tv?

send an e-mail at booktv@cspan.org or twitter. >> marine is at the university of maryland and former reporter for the washington post. she's written a book called "women of the washington press politics prejudice and persistence." what was it like to write for "the washington post" in the 1960's and 70's? >> i was there from 63 to 73 and that is what prompted me to write this book because i remembered that there were a group of us women there, and i remembered how hard the women had to work. some of them were so incredibly talented. i knew the struggle they had to get assignments that were equal with men. it's interesting that tonight we are here read the national press club and you are interviewing me right under the infamous balcony where the women were penned up during the 1960's.

they were not allowed to sit down on the floor with the men and eat at the luncheon table even though the government had the thinkers here the press club. the government had a policy of having foreign dignitaries, figures of the press club. and so, women who were assigned to cover these people were cooped up here in this hot, miserable balcony where they couldn't eat, and here they could see men calling down here on the floor having a nice lunch. also, they couldn't hear up there. they didn't have enough room to take notes. but that was the status of the women in those days. there was a woman in the "washington post" i knew well who had been on the scenes in this book. she was taken off the priced civil rights assignment at the post because the people that were involved in this civil

rights protest were going to have a meeting here at the press club and because women were not allowed in the press club, the post instead of complaining about this just said we will assigned a man to it. that is the way things work. >> what was your beat the "washington post"? >> i had a variety of beats at the post. i covered a city of alexandria. but i also later covered the corps general sessions, which is now the superior court. and i covered welfare and i covered education in the d.c. public schools. i was on the metro staff. >> not only were you a reporter of the post but a journalism professor at the university of maryland following the field for a long time. do you see -- what is the difference now for the female reporters in the 1960's and 70's? >> well, there's a lot of differences. actually, i am still at the university of maryland. i'm a graduate director of the college of journalism.

we men have many more opportunities now than men do, but i still think it's harder for the women to practice the glass ceiling. one of the things about this book so that i ended with is how i ron that is that now women have the chance to be the leading figures in journalism. and they have a chance to be editors of the major newspapers. they have much more of a chance of than they used to have probably in television even. although that might be disputed. but certainly in print they have more opportunity. however, the business is changing. they got to the top of the field, and then the field crumbled away under their feet. >> maurine beasley, the author of "women of the washington press politics prejudice and

persistence." >> thank you. >> there is no process more of an addiction, and i do try to use it sparingly because they rather convincingly argue that there are some differences between food cravings and narcotic cravings, certain technical thresholds. however, when they talk about their a lower, again the language can be so real feeling they use words like cravable, snackable, moreishness. ..

>> host: it is my pleasure to interview moises naim for this episode of "after words." you are a noted columnist, international economics and globalization. you are also a scholar for the endowment for international peace and formerly editor of foreign-policy magazine and former trade minister of venezuela. so, all that said you have also now written a new book