Skip to main content

tv   Book TV  CSPAN  August 17, 2013 11:00am-12:01pm EDT

11:00 am
collection of conspiracy theories in the u.s. from the colonial era to the war on terror in "the united states of paranoia: a spear si theory." in the great dissent, how oliver wendell homes changed his mind, thomas healey, a law professor at seton hall university, reconstructs the debate from an opponent of free speech to a supporter. christina hoff summer, a resident scholar at the american enterprise institute, argues that society has shifted so much attention to females in the academics it's caused males to fall behind in "the war against boys: how misguided policies are harming our men." jonathan schwartz, professor emeritus of political science at the university of arizona, argues that republicans and democrats have drifted from the common ideologies of freedom and equality that the majority of americans agree with in "common
11:01 am
credo." and in "the people's advocate," constitutional trial attorney jan dell sheehan re-- daniel sheehan refounts his roles in the watergate case. look for these titles in bookstores this coming week and watch for the authors in the near future on booktv and on booktv.org. .. thank you.
11:02 am
a pleasure to be back and ladies and gentlemen and also my lovely wife, makai law, of all the names, delighted to be here. j.d. is used to declare an emergency and request help. i chose this as the title for the book which is the subject of this afternoon's event because american see trouble is in power. in trouble. the last official statement of u.s. maritime strategy was published six years ago.
11:03 am
projecting power, responding to crises, showing the flag around the world, the 2007 strategy emphasized cooperation with other navies and humanitarian missions. these, the documents said, would help prevent wars. the policy that i think is inconsistent with american foreign and military policy of the past which has usually responded rather than anticipated conflict. more important, the navy's 2007 strategy did not mention the word china. not once. naval spokesman have justified this oversight as a means of avoiding a necessarily antagonizing china, yet china
11:04 am
has made it clear in word and deed that its policy is to deny the united states access to the western pacific. with u.s. access to the western pacific in doubt, our ability to honor our commitments to the five nations with whom we have security trees in eat southeast asia would be called into question. china is building a ballistic missile system intended to target large american vessels, read aircraft carriers, underway at sea at a distance of 1200 miles. china has conducted cyberattacks against the u.s. government as well as industry. it has declared that the international waters of the south and east china seas lie within its southern -- sovereign grasp. its military budget continues as
11:05 am
it has for over two decades to increase by double digit figures from year to year. it has built a formidable array of surface to surface and surface-to-air missiles and continues amassing an arsenal of these from the straits to taiwan. despite this administration's imposition from the middle east wars it has tried to close, the persian gulf will remain volatile and dangerously so if iran becomes a nuclear power. some of you may have read the washington-based institute for science and international security report that was published on tuesday. that predicted that iran will be able to produce weapons-grade uranium by the middle of 2014
11:06 am
without being detected. in addition, as current events demonstrate belmont and margaret are in turmoil. turkey has reversed direction and is pursuing islamist domestic and foreign policies that are the equal of its ottoman past. syria is in the midst of a horrific civil war. we must rely on the egyptian military's prudence to avoid a similar outcome in the arab world's greatest state and recent developments in tunisia don't look promising either. the eastern mediterranean has reverted to the instability that characterize it for most of recorded history. the u.s. sixth fleet, our mediterranean naval force which
11:07 am
once included two carrier battle groups consists today of a command ship based in italy and three or so surface ships equipped with ballistic missile defenses. in the mediterranean the soft power the obama administration favors is in fact unsupported by a hard power. into the vacuum left by our departure, others are stepping. iran has sent a frigate and much larger helicopter carrier into the mediterranean. china last year ordered a destroyer, guided missile frigate and a logistics vessel, and this year, at least until now, has deployed two guided missile frigates which have
11:08 am
called algeria, molto, morocco and france, russia currently has 16 ships in the mediterranean and plans a rotation schedule allowing permanent presence for now of 12 ships. moscow is seeking to reach an agreement with cyprus that would allow russian combat aircraft and vessels to use an air field in the western part of ireland and the southern -- my point here noted in the book is not so much to paint a picture of what i regard as troublesome military developments in the mediterranean or even in china that affect us and our allies, it is rather to emphasize that contrary to the navy's 2007
11:09 am
maritime strategy of preventing wars, neither u.s. naval nor national leadership has acknowledged that we are in fact in a strategic competition with china that requires diplomatic and military strategy as well as resources to support it. the rebalancing to asia as the obama administration terms it, does not clearly state what the objective of the rebalance is. if the rebalance is intended to counter growing military chinese power in the region the slight redistribution of u.s. naval forces away from the rest of the world's, where the administration has announced, will not keep pace with china's
11:10 am
arms buildup for keep peace either and with $500 billion already subtracted from the defense department and the first obama administration, the prospect that sequestration will remove an equal amount where will the funds come from to build, deploy and maintain a larger pacific fleet in the future? a substantial portion of "mayday: the decline of american naval supremacy" looks at the size of today's fleet and its prospects for growth in the future but prior question really is to what end? i believe that our security is best served if we have a clear understanding of the strategy needed to secure our interests and those of our allies but i don't think we do.
11:11 am
notwithstanding the question of the size of american see power, the issue of the size of american sea power is quite serious. at the end of the cold war u.s. combat fleet near the bold president set of 600 ships and 15 carrier battle groups. at approximately 285 ships today's fleet is less than half that size. the goal of a 313 ship fleet toward which the navy had striven for the better part of the last decade has most recently been reduced to 306 ships. three star admiral who up until his recent retirement was responsible for naval warfare systems predicted without the contingency funds that helped
11:12 am
sustain military operations throughout middle eastern wars the size of the fleet would decrease to approximately 195 ships over the next 30 years. both the congressional research service and the congressional budget office identify large gaps between navy estimates of what is needed to reach the 306 ship fleet and the actual ship costs, inflation and likely available funding. the navy is asking $14 billion for shipbuilding this year regardless of sequestration. at the same time the navy acknowledges the shipbuilding budget of $18.8 billion. year is needed for each of the next 30 years to reach 306 ship fleet. congress has research arms that say the navy underestimates the
11:13 am
true cost by $3 billion per year over a the same 30 year period. quite a large difference. sequestration, as you know, a is a bit matter. prior to its implementation the navy sought to trim costs by not deploying the truman carrier battle group to the middle east. this leaves a single carrier battle group as warning signals that iran is approaching nuclear status increase. may be tied up 7 surface combatants with many years of useful service life still left in them. the most direct way to save money is to reduce operations. naval leadership accomplished this, a reduced budget targets, also diminished the distributed global presence of the u.s.
11:14 am
combat fleet. in addition several aircraft carrier wings, levels of training were reduced to a minimum safe flying levels. this means they would not be prepared for combat if there were a crisis. it would take time to prepare them. four supply ships that served the u.s. pacific command were laid up and that is particularly important because of the pacific's in density and our commensurate need to resupply vessels on patrol in its furthest regions. no supply, no operations. other costs savings measured for the first year of sequestration included a reduction in the number of escort ships that accompanied the nimitz carrier battle group and early return to port of a frigate assigned to the u.s. southern command which is responsible among other things for stanching the flow of
11:15 am
illegal drugs from south and central america into the united states. for now, the navy will fail to meet its readiness standards for two thirds of its non deployed ships and aviation squadrons. as chief of naval operations, admiral jonathan greene are told congress, quote, we will not be able to respond in the way the nation has expected and depended on us. in short, that is the end of his quote, instruct the navy will meet in sequestration by operating less while extending the deployments of ships at sea which ironically increase the cost of repairing them and also by buying fewer ships in the future. this will cut readiness, it will reduce the presence of globally distributed fleet over the short
11:16 am
term and diminish american sea power's ability to recover that presence in the future by simply depriving it of ships. there is no good news here. history offers sober proof. states that she brainpower by taking the best advantage of their proximity to the sea and then forgot or lost their dominant c power never recovered. ignoring pericles's advice to secure commercial advantage of its seapower and lost the polynesian war and its great power stratus. in its search for resources on land to build and supply its powerful fleet venice became entangled in the warfare of the italian city states, ignored the
11:17 am
transformation of naval architecture from inland sea vessels to oceangoing holes and propulsion and alienated its trade partners by overtaxing. the glorious city that see power created remains but the power made it possible ended five centuries ago. the dutch used their merchant fleet to establish europe's most vibrant economy and figured their wealth and protected by naval force or protected by a very small one would suffice. they learned the hard way that wealth is no guarantor of peace. holland's small naval force mateys pickings for the english and lost, the dutch lost never to recover the maritime source of their power. england, burdened by the
11:18 am
unexpectedly high cost of the war and the idea that government debt at any level was an evil, began to abandon its global presence even before world war i. today the royal navy has 19 surface combatants, that is less than a third of what it possessed as recently as the falklands war. the likelihood the british reestablish their position as a great power or a great maritime power is beyond my imagination. for a state whose greatness rests importantly on the economic and security benefits of seaborne trade, the ability to protect it and alliance is sustained by naval force, the evaporation of dominant see power is the loss of national
11:19 am
greatness. and although my book does not cover the subject in detail is worth noting here that the gathering debate within the republican party over america's engagement with the world including the resources to support such engagement is an ominous sign. not only for those who see the connection between a powerful u.s. and a more democratic and safe world for the world itself. as britain began to give up its global reach before world war i, an ascendant u.s. was fair, gradually to don an important part of the discarded mantle. if those within the republican party who for reasons different from president obama's triumph, america's retreat to less influence and less participation in the world will offer neither
11:20 am
stability nor prosperity. there is no powerful democratic state in the sidelines waiting to assume our current responsibilities. there is china. a let's engage, less powerful, more inward looking america will diminish the international demand for american products. it will risk and ultimately sunder our leadership position in europe and asia and it will give birth to a new international order, one in which liberty, free-market said, human-rights, respect for territorial sovereignty and freedom of navigation on the high seas are not priorities. i don't think any of us want to
11:21 am
see this happen and returning to the central theme of the book i think there are many steps we can take to prevent and reverse naval decline. this would mean acknowledging the importance of the strategic competition in which we find ourselves opposite china and also emphasizing the importance of the middle east and hemispheric defense. such a declaration of priorities would help answer questions about the size and character of the u.s. fleet hand these questions continue to dog us today. the greater discipline in the design of naval vessels crossed over runs have been a problem in recent years when we have seen the expense of the navy's newest carrier greatly exceed original contractual obligation.
11:22 am
the navy's destroyer met the same problems and the program was largely canceled. the combat ship experienced similar issues initially and the modular systems that allow the same combat ship to perform different combat missions have yet to be built and the ploy and who knows? paid for. similar accountability is needed through the entire defense department whose organization for procurement is heavily centralized like got relic of the soviet union. in general the office of the secretary of defense bureaucracy is huge, unwieldy and unnecessarily expensively. it should be reduced stand made accountable land key roles should be returned to military
11:23 am
services. of the same time those parts of the 1986 legislation known as goldwater nichols should be changed to reestablish the military service chiefs's responsibility for their service's strategic vision. is largely migrated to the office of the secretary of defense and the joint staff, joint chiefs, as professor samuel huntington of harvard, who died a few years ago observed in his famous 1954 article in proceedings, military services that do not have a clear view of their strategic raison d'etre become purposeless and wallow about amid a variety of conflicting and confusing goals and alternately suffer both physical and moral degeneration.
11:24 am
we should also move away from the political correctness of providing the service of military services. in 1986 legislation encourage this but it was not always so. president eisenhower divided the military budget, and in the 1950s has sought to improve the nuclear deterrent. mission in which the army could not participate as extensively as the air force. i don't think it will surprise anybody by saying i am pessimistic about the immediate future for our services and for the navy in particular. over the long run, i don't think americans have become isolationist. i don't believe our fellow citizens would like to have a military that is second to anybody in the world. the question is whether we as a
11:25 am
nation will realize the mistake soon enough to take effective corrective action. i wrote "mayday: the decline of american naval supremacy" to encourage a national discussion that i believe is needed to make these choices deliberately, consciously, not by default and i am happy to speak this afternoon at heritage. i don't need to return but because we share the same goal, thank you for your attention and i am happy to answer questions, aren't i? >> yes. please wait for the microphone, your name and affiliation, ask a question so we can get to as many as possible, thank you very much. >> thank you. i am dick hoffman and i am a civilian. i have no affiliation other than several years in the marine
11:26 am
corps and the cia. my question is your view of the vulnerability of carrier battle groups to as you mention the chinese missile threat and others and i am sure you are aware there is a lot of debate going on about carrier battle groups in the future. what is your view? >> what is my view of the vulnerability? china tested the missile referred to which is called the d f 21 in the spring or maybe early summer or late spring or something like that. it was a test on land. they declared it a successful test. i expect other tests will follow at sea and eventually moving
11:27 am
target. i don't know whether they are going to succeed but if i were going to bed i think they probably will. you don't have to hit the target on the first shot. it is not like it is one weapon and that is it. it can send 20 of them. what is ballistic missile cost compared to a large aircraft carrier? so 15 or 20 years ago if somebody had suggested that china would be developing such a device, i think most people in the military would say you must be out of your mind. but i think today people are taking it much more seriously. i think it is a real threat.
11:28 am
that doesn't mean the end. military history as you know is, this goes on. we will have to respond in some form or another. and defenses against ballistic missile can be produced, difficult but not impossible. the range of planes that would conduct surveillance and combat missions could be extended but of course the answer to that is to extend the range of the ballistic missile. it is up problem. we have to deal with it in one form or another and i take this threat seriously. does that answer? >> yes. >> thank you. reporter from the voice of america. i was wondering, i do not think
11:29 am
you do state that china's threat is imminent. i read something the chinese take seriously to reach the level of u.s. mobile. thank you. >> i was saying i do not think you do really think that china's navy, china, the china threat is imminent and it takes years for china to reach the label of that every now and then. >> i don't think anybody -- in the chinese military or the chinese naval part of chinese military. can you hear me? [laughter]
11:30 am
>> today i don't think there would be much of a contest between the u.s. navy and the chinese navy. i am concerned with things are going to look like 30 years from now or even 20 years from now because if you combine sequestration with the budget cuts that have already taken place and even more important than that, those are signs of the american public's sort of forgetting the importance of naval power. if that forgetfulness is extended and we are not reminded how important dominance at sea is, i think the long-term trend is very serious for the united states. because china is modernizing its
11:31 am
fleet, building a larger one, they have an aircraft carrier they didn't have a year ago let's see. it is going to take some time to learn how to operate it effectively and safely. there are plans for a second one. a loss of our senior officers are saying it is only two. it is only two today. try to think about what things look like three decades from now. the navy is responsible for doing that. it has to report to congress on where it is going to be 30 years from now. the reason i pointed out the difference between the navy's estimates will take to reach a reduced fleet and congress's estimate is exactly for the reason, exactly answers your point. we are not getting where we need to go. we are going in the opposite
11:32 am
direction. if this ends up in a situation where the united states is required to pull its chips from everywhere else in the world in order to deter or convince china that it is not a good idea to think about going to war with the united states, we have done the british thing. we are no longer a dominant global power. we can only apply force in one place in particular where it is necessary. that is what i am concerned about. it is the future. >> thank you very much. i am jeffrey from king's office and my question is regarding the sort of fast pace of technological change. as you point out the navy has better discipline in its shipbuilding and design package but on the other hand how can we
11:33 am
solve that with a need to take, future technology as a game change in naval warfare? thank you very much. >> designing and building new technology does not equal cost overruns. one of the major reasons for cost overruns, perhaps the most significant one is you decide you are going to build a particular ship like the new carrier where new combat systems are being engineered for the
11:34 am
first time, and as you are building the ships, one or 10 or 100 of your prime contractor or secondary contractors do business with come along and say i have a better idea for doing this than the one we had originally agreed to. it is going to cost you all little bit more and if you say let's do it, no problem. if you say it a thousand times, big problem. being disciplined about those issues would be a large step forward in introducing the cost discipline i'm talking about into a system that has had trouble maintaining it over the years. it does not mean we are not able
11:35 am
to take care, not able to take advantage of rail guns or electronic launch catapults. it is unfortunately a matter of being nibbled to death by ducks. if the idea here, another one here, and those up and have $860 million overrun on an aircraft carrier. if you say no just say no. >> al milliken, the effects of international policy, piracy, what would you say about the u.s. navy and the national maybe
11:36 am
responses to that? >> the initial responses to privacy of of the horn of africa were appropriate. they were useful. it seems to me the merchant marine, the merchants running ships who have trained their crews and armed some of them have been at least as effective as naval force. it is o huge area that the pirates have operated in. if we could have the navy, our navy into the area we still couldn't guarantee safety. i think the measures that have been taken by the shipping
11:37 am
companies have been at least as successful as naval action in decrease in the of piracy in 7s off of the horn of africa. >> this question? >> colonel friedman, u.s. army. regarding technology and the advancement of technology, both air and sea. i was wondering how that affected the final projected number, and what is your projection of what you need as far as the no. 8 you mentioned 306 and 311 but what do you think the ideal number should be? >> there is the quadrennial
11:38 am
defense review. by congressional requirement there is the answer to the queue d r that is required. the most recent one recommended a fleet of 350 ships. i think that is that sensible figure. it would allow the united states to maintain a three of navy based on presence in the western pacific, in the middle east, in this hemisphere. i think that is the most
11:39 am
sensible approach. there is some truth, there is truth in the assertion that increasing technology diminishes the need to for a large fleet but it is not if you look at this as a catalyst problem, it turns into in sanity. if you could for example put the entire combat power of the navy in 2 one ship, do you want to do that. one shift can't be in two places at once. so 350 is about the right number. that might decrease as technology improves. for example, we are talking
11:40 am
about naval guns that with the assist of rock that power could have a range of 200 miles, you can do 200 miles and you could make it 2,000 miles, hard to imagine but tell captain isaac hall of the constitution that ships of the u.s. navy could fire shells 200 miles, you must be nuts. who knows? for today with today's technology i think 350 is the right number. >> my name is catherine, my question, in the reverse of
11:41 am
negative decline, talk about greater discipline and cost in designer vessels and i am curious if you have some more actionable items that you could discuss on what we might do about the problem. >> maybe somebody here has a little bit better memory than i do but in the last two or three months the navy landed an unmanned aerial vehicle aboard an aircraft carrier and it wasn't done by a sailor with the joystick somewhere on the ship or somewhere else.
11:42 am
was done by machines, by computers, drones are not cheap, but they certainly can reduce costs because you don't have to have people flying them. people are expensive to pay and provide benefits for, ships and spaces to live. drones, unmanned vehicles, both in the air, on the surface and underwater, are one possible solution that will save money. does an aircraft carrier need to be as big as the ones we are building today, especially when at least for the foreseeable
11:43 am
future they are going to be vulnerable to ballistic missiles or good chance they will be vulnerable to ballistic missiles? probably not. could a smaller aircraft carrier be affective? i think so. would it be better to have three smaller carriers than one big carrier? for us it would. for an enemy that has to read distribute its forces so it has to cover three ships better than one is not a good thing at all. that is another possibility. do we need to keep building only nuclear-powered submarines? they are quite expensive, billions of dollars, they are not as quiet as diesel electric submarines, there is new technology coming online, has
11:44 am
been for decades coming online that allows submarines to operate independently of air. are those cheaper than nuclear submarines, yes. same question with aircraft carriers. would it be better if we had three or four diesel electric or other powered submarines other than nuclear powered submarines? from our point of view it would be better. from a potential enemy's point of view they have to deal with four submarines instead of one. those are some of the examples of things we could do that would increase our combat effectiveness and likely diminish costs. does that answer your question?
11:45 am
>> it was much simpler and smaller and westerly share your preference. can you keep substantial piece of the fleet operational with substantial use of reserves? reservists? reconfigured redesigned reserves, not full time, 24/7, 365 troops? >> what do you mean? reserves? >> i like the idea. reserve officer, my experience is reservists, up properly called on can be very affective.
11:46 am
sort of an ancient prejudice against the reserves. i don't see that changing. you can never tell because you don't know what sort of events will take place in the future. if really pressed the country would rethink, the political leadership would rethink that and insist that their reserves be used more in keeping with their potential and demonstrated capabilities. they are such a powerful institution resistance to that. a little story to illustrate something i know you know but may be others are not quite aware of to illustrate the point. a few years ago when i was at
11:47 am
the american enterprise institute and quadrennial defense review was being conducted, a now retired admiral would call me and said can you come over and to a single session, sort of criticize the navy's part of the cue the are --q --qdr? we would take potshots at it and what not and a third or fourth time he called i said joe, i happen to work for you. what do you mean? i said i am in your reserve,
11:48 am
with reserve capacity on the weekends, you can have me free their. wanted this. my advice wouldn't have been any different but hard to overcome that. >> last question. >> danny wolf. you mentioned the last maritime strategy's emphasis on cooperation with other navys, does the recent panamanian seizure of cuban material in the north korean ship, can you shed any light on that? >> no, i can't but i can tell you that southern command, the
11:49 am
navy and special operations partnerships, very high priority in southern command cover taking it very seriously, take it more seriously than what you do with those partnerships once you establish them. how do you use them to accomplish, they are not bowls in themselves but intended to facilitate other goals, but i don't know about the panamanian case but i do know that it takes the issue of partnership building very seriously. >> thank you very much, thank you for coming and fake you for joining us. [applause]
11:50 am
[inaudible conversations] >> booktv is on facebook. like us to interact with booktv guest and viewers, get up-to-date information on events, facebook.com/booktv. >> this is a place where you have to know what you are about because of the people will want to tell you what you are about and they don't have your best interests in mind. that is where survival is manhood becomes insistent about being what i am, being fixed on what i am. an open question is how much is that unique to prisons, is that almost americans are who are strangely absolutist and clueless at the same time?
11:51 am
my truth is the one true truth but i recognize your right to a wrong truth. i don't know the answer to that question. >> religion and theology at pennsylvania's maximum-security prison sunday night at 9:00 on after words, part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. what are you reading this summer? booktv wants to know. >> several books. one that i have that i am currently reading is about the rivalry between that mimi and burl mimi who were two sculptors, architects, artists who build or designed and rebuild etc. the st. peter's. the reason is my niece had her confirmation and i was her sponsor and i promised and we
11:52 am
are going to go. the second book is rome by robert hughes which is the history of rome. those other two i will buy get done in the next two weeks. if have time i want to read the matt silver book about predictions and i think i am looking at my ipad because they are downloaded. it is called the signal and the noise and it is about predictions. matt silver was the one, the baseball, the side of the players and helped to get a winning team based on probability of hits and he applied that science of probability to politics. i am interested to hear what he had to say about probability and predictions. several other books that i have, one of them i am reading right here on my ipad is beauty about
11:53 am
the philosophy of beauty in our lives and what type of impact it has and whether it is important. i am interested to read that and also have a stephen hawking's book the theory of everything i have wanted to read for a while but that has been on my reading list for a bit and still haven't gotten to it. three or four books of i am lucky in the next month a double finish them up and read them. >> let us know what you are reading this summer. tweet us at booktv, posted on our facebook page or send us an e-mail at booktv@c-span.org. >> you are watching booktv on c-span2. here is our prime time lineup for tonight. starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern former mtv vj kennedy talks to booktv from freedom fest 2013.
11:54 am
her book is the kennedy chronicles, the golden age of mtv through rose, glasses. at 7:30 p.m. lawrence samuel explores the american dream. at 8:45, the creation of the american arsenal during world war ii with maury klein. at:00 eastern, joshua dubler joins us on after words, discusses his book down in the chapel. we wrap up tonight's prime-time programming at 11:00 p.m. eastern, with double victory, presented to an audience at the 2013 roosevelt reading festival. visit booktv.org for more of this weekend's tv schedule. >> amy goodman, in your first book the exception to the rulers, you write and you are quoting the washington post, 80 goodman is the journalist commentamy
11:55 am
goodman is the journalist comment as an invited guest. >> we are not supposed the party to any party. this is the only one explicitly protected by the u.s. constitution. we are supposed to be the check and balance on power. >> host: in that book also, war and peace, life and death, that is the role of the media in a democratic society, to provide a forum for this is course, to do anything less is a disservice to the servicemen and servicewomen of this country. >> i had a jet flown in from denver when i was at the national conference on media reform and when we flew into the airport, at denver airport people hold up signs when you come out to pick you up and as we were walking there were some soldiers, they were going to be picking up the general and as we walk by they were waving and i thought maybe the general was
11:56 am
behind me. it didn't look that way. i thought i am going to go back and talk to them so i went back and you watch democracy now and they said every day so i said really? why do you watch? it is objective and you cover war. it is not with you for or against war. it is about covering the most serious decision a country can make. i see the immediate as a huge kitchen table that stretches across the globe, we all sit around and debate and discuss the most important issues of the day. war and peace, life and death and anything less is a disservice to the servicemen and women of the country, they can't have these debate on military bases. they rely on us in civilian society to have the discussions that leads to the decisions about whether they live or die, whether they are sent to kill or be killed.
11:57 am
anything less than that disservice to a democratic society. >> one of the recurring themes in your riding is the corporate media as you call it. what is the corporate me the and what does it do or not do? >> what most people see on television on most channels, not all. the channel, nbc, cbs, abc, cnn that break for the advertisers, turn to corporate support. i see the hope in public media, media that is brought to you by the listeners and viewers who are deeply committed to independence information. when they cover war not brought to you by the weapons manufacturers, cover crime -- climate change not brought to by the oil, gas, the coal companies, the nuclear companies, when we cover the health care debate in this country not brought to you by big pharma, the drug companies or the insurance industry. but brought to listeners and
11:58 am
viewers my listeners and viewers who feel that information is power, information is essential, it is the oxygen of a democracy. >> host: back to the exception to the rulers. our motto at democracy now is to break the sound barrier. we call ourselves to the exception to the rulers, we believe all media should be. what do you mean by sound barrier? >> so often on the networks we get this small circle of pundits who knows so little about so much, explaining the world to us and getting it so wrong. we go to the communities to talk to people in this country and around the world who learned the hard of the story. it is not easy to find the people sense authentic voices. that is why so many young people listen to democracy in all. we have a diverse audience in this country and around the
11:59 am
world because people know in what they're talking about because they're talking from their own experience. that is the best kind of journalism. providing a forum for people to speak for themselves, providing a forum for people from different strata of society to debate and discuss with each other the critical issues but hearing those voices of great diversity of people, that is the role of journalism in a democratic society. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> we have got more coverage of nonfiction books and the book industry every weekend on booktv including later today at 7:00 eastern, former mtv vj kennedy, years that mtv. >> incredibly powerful because they realize they tap into a
12:00 pm
generation of voters and also this is a time when you are in your teens and late teens and early 20s we are most passionate about things in your life. ..

90 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on