killing people, that was nose what he wanted. he wanted a more traditional authoritarian structure, and so solving a couple of these cases was in his interest. i phrases it. in russia, justice is just crude political calculation, and in this case the calculation was that bringing some of the lower level perpetrators to justice served the political interests of the government. >> my question is regarding hungary. seems like it's the new colombia, or the things happening there right now are the things you were mentioned about colombia. so, if you can shed some light on the situation some what the road ahead for hungary. i would say column colombia is the new turkey, and they're part of the democrator club.

hungary is an eu member, but the government there -- the leadership has basically said we have our own conception of the -- of state interests, and we are going to emulate russia more than we're going to emulate the e. u., so your seeing a real crackdown on media and civil society. there was a recent protest, as i'm sure you're aware, bat new internet tax. it's really interesting. no one was really reacting to all these threats and attacks on journalists but when they started taxing the internet, that got people agitated. goes to my point about linking the struggle for media freedom to the broader struggle for freedom of expression. but hungary is absolutely going

the wrong direction. we just sent a mission to hungary led by our cpj board member, who is hungarian american and knows the country well, and her report was very chilling. she wrote about it in an op-ed for the "times" but this is a country that is an e.u. member bus it rejecting e. u. values. >> you mentioned earlier that the chinese government has used internet to enter ther serve its stronger hold on media. how would you see the spread of internet and the democracy sization of the information in china which is helping the --

and do you think that in the end would somehow change the were are. >> guest: i write about the battle in china and the internet optimists. the government's vision of the internet in chinese society. the question is that -- i think that the leadership in china definitely embases connectivity and definitely understand that this is critical economic engine and they also feel that this technology can serve what they conceive to be the party's interest in terms of creating connection between the leadership and the population and allowing them to share their concerns with the leadership, et cetera, et cetera. so they have a kind of -- fairly pragmatic vision of the internet

and what -- how it can serve chinese state interests. they're not like cuba or some other country like that, that really wants to shut out the internet. but what they don't want the enter note be for is political organizing. that where is they draw the line, and also very concerned about the fact that the internet is a global system and outside influences can penetrate china and potentially be destabilizing. so that's the way they conceptualize it, and i think what is really formidable is they have come up with a system that has worked pretty well, that helps them achieve their stated goals of -- china has more people online than any other country in the world. obviously got more people so they is a head start but it's

profoundly transformed the society, and yet it's managed the challenges that this connectivity has created. i think china has a vision of what the -- china's vision of the internet is a bit like the national highway system. yes, it connects, but once you get in that national highway, they want to have control over what happens. they want to have their own rules. and that's a vision that is very appealing to many other countries around the world and it's vision that china has largely succeeded in making real. i think we have to acknowledge that. >> do you think that diminishing economic power of media companies plays a role in this nguyen her toship, and if so -- this new censorship? absolutely. it's fundamental. there's a recalibration that has been taking place of the power

of the media itself, and the institutional media in particular. when you talk about threats against journalists, repressive government or nonstate actors -- the thing that kept journalist safe is that they were useful. i you wanted to communicate to your own population, and certainly internationally can the only mechanism was journalists. and the information environment has completely -- is completely different now and that is no long their case. used to be if you got kidnapped by nasty folks, your argument was, hey, if you don't let me go i'm not go to be able to tell your story. that's kind of laughable now. that's not going to get you out of any dicey situation. so, it's also -- i was just in

turkey and we had a meeting meeh president aired juan. and they -- erdogan, and he came interest the meeting with the defiant posture, journalists, all journalists are basically attacking my government, undermining these interests, the interests of the state, and he included "the new york times" and cnn. there's nobody that he had any praise for. he had nothing possess tonight say about journalists of press freedom, and that was a shot across the bow. that was him sawing i can achieve the interests i want to achieve. i can achieve my political goals without any support from the media, because i have alternative ways of communicating, alternative ways of communicating domestically and internationally.

so, it's precisely because of the power dynamic has shifted that journalists face greater threat both from government and nonstate actors. >> host: that's not confined to turkey. >> guest: not at all. >> host: taking place down on pennsylvania avenue. >> guest: it's the same dynamic. the obama administration and the bush administration was very open about its ability to bypass the media and disenter -- disintermediate. >> i am a student here. at the same time when you see that this weakening of media institutions you see the rights of public protesting companies in countries like -- and they are employing english speaking young journalists how do you see this fits the --

>> guest: that's really interesting phenomenon and one that is troubling in many ways. governments are entering the international media scene and doing it in a way that they think advances their particular state interests, and sometimes they have farely sophisticated understanding that the interests: al-jazeera is a examine. the government of qatar invested huge amounts of money but they see their interests advanced by having a credible independent news organization that has global influence, whereas russia, with rt, or iran with press tv, these are government-funded english language international

broadcasters. use these platforms to engage in crude propaganda. and, frankly, this is a real challenge for those of white house defend journalists and those who defend freedom of expression, because we're really right up against the line here. we make a point of not making judgments about the quality because if you defend freedom of expression, you defend freedom of expression you defend the good and the bad, but particularfully russia some, some of these immediateow organizations are engaging in propaganda and pushing up against the line of what i consider to be incitement to violence which is outside the freedom of expression framework. >> hi. i have a somewhat related question. more general about your mission and mandate to protect journalists in this disrupted age. what is your definition of a

journalist? >> well, that's -- luckily i came prepared for that question. i get it a lot. one of the things we have realized over the course of our existence is having any sort of ridge eddefinitions counterproductive. one advantage of the work that cpj does is we respond to real cases so we don't really have to answer that question in the abstract. we're really not asking the question of who is a journalist. we're asking the question, is this individual a journalist? and then you look at a con tech -- contextually. the work they're doing this nature of society in which they're working. the framework in which we operate is -- if you're gathering and disseminating information or engaged in fact-based commentary that serves the public, then you're engaged in journalism, whether you're a journalist -- whether you self-identify as journalist

or not. so, we have a very flexible and pragmatic definition of who is a journalist, and we also sometimes defend people who are clearly not journalists, because -- we say that this person is not a journalist, but the actions the government is taking against this individual creates an environment which is hostile to the exercise of journalism and, therefore, we are going to speak out. so, if we had to answer that question in a very direct and sort of hypothetical way, i think it would be very difficult, but it is possible to do it when you're looking at these as individual cases. >> joel, how do you think cpj's method of rigorously researching journalists and advocating hospital. effective are they against this

democrators. the basis of their legitimacy is -- they're against the west. the press freedom is a western value and they're generally impervious to the advocacy campaigns. >> guest: i don't think they're impervious. the narrative they have -- they may be against the west because they have a sort of power critique of the west, but they self-identify as democracies. and their legitimacy is derived from their ability to win elections. if they can't -- that's the difference between a traditional dictatorship and democaators. they can actually win an election and if they've can't, their power -- either they

become a traditionol dictator or they lose power. so, the question is what do they do with the power they have? and they in most instances try to argue that their actions are legitimate because they conform to democratic norms. i took that being able to demonstrate this is not in fact the case is a very valid and effective strategy, and it's worked pretty well for news turkey, for example, because the government's framework there, when these journalists were arrested and imprisoned, was that these are terrorists and were doing what any democratic country does, arresting and prewitting terrorist, and when we dem mott straighted, no, you're not following international norms and this is not legitimate, that put a lot of pressure on the government. >> host: i think we have time for one last question. >> i feel very honored. to follow up on sheila's question in your book and also

at freedom house we agree there's an increasing role and threat pose bid nonstate actors whether criminal gangs or islamist terrorist us. following up on the question, how do these methods work against gripes where your not advocating for a government or a government which may have some interest in preserving its legitimacy or responding to criticism from groups like ours. >> guest: well, they don't really work. i mean, we have no -- when you're threatened by mexican drug cartels or threatened by isis, there's basically nothing -- there's nothing that we can do that applies direct political pressure on these groups. i wouldn't say we just throw up our arms arms and do nothing. there's a real val knew documenting what is taking place. these are crimes. we have to document the crimes.

and you never know when the environment will shift and there will be an opportunity for justice. it also -- the more we learn about what the risks are, the more we can help mitigate the risks and educate journalists what the challenges are. so there are things we can do and are doing but those kind of traditional advocacy strategies simply don't work against -- they're based on the fact that these actors, whether they're states or nonstate actors, care about their international reputation for the most part, or even in a domestic context. if they have no concern nor interest, then those strategies simply won't work. >> host: ladies and gentlemen, the book is "the nguyen her toship: inside the global for media freedom." you copies are in the book in. happy you'll mark the chapters that are relevant to you and the

things you do to affect some changes. joel, thank you very much. >> guest: thank you. >> thank you, this has been a stimulating conversation. books are at the back and joel will be there -- sure, be happy to. >> thank you for joining tonight and good evening, everyone. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> each month oklahoma congressman tom cole releases a reading list on his web site. heirs his recommend titles for november which focus on native american history. charles mann looks at the america before the arrival of klister columbus in the book 1491. in the real all americans, sally jenkins recount this carlisle indian industrial school and its football team which included jim thorpe. also on the list is pulitzer prize finalist gwen's empire of the summer moon and james wilson's the earth shall weep, which explore the struggle between nailtive americans and european settlers. next, congressman coll recommends the biography of the tribe leader, tecumseh, and an account of the battle of little big or, and wrapping up, the recounting of the forced removal of the cherokees from their land in "driven west." to see what other titles

recommended visit cole.house.gov. >> the basic idea of clean glass of drinking water, which i central to ghost map as a book that we live in a world for the most part here in the developed world where you go to the faucet and get a glass of drinking party and drink it and don't ever think about dying of cholera 48 hours later. and that is an incredible achievement. that you can live in a city of a million people or ten million people and have that kind of security. that took a whole history of invention and ingenuity and scientific breakthroughs and great engineering projects to make that possible. and yet while we celebrate innovation in our society all the time, everybody wants to talk about silicon valley and the next apple back jet -- gadget, which is great and their worth celebrating.

we don't spend enough time talking about the people who made the clean glass of drink water part of our lives. so i want to good back and tell the stories and also to talk about the kind of unexpected places that these technologies ultimately led us. this is this idea of the humming byrd effect, which is elaborate metaphor for nature. i was writing the book in california we have these hummingbirds in our garden and i was obsessed with them, and the hummingbird evolved in an interesting way. you have the flowering plants and insects have this complicated dance of pollination and have been parallel over millions of years. it's a connection that doesn't have anything to do with bird and then this bird figures out that there's a way to get in on the action of this nectar, but has to evolve this illinois credibly different wing structure to hover right next to

a flowering plant, and so what seems to be just a relationship between insect and plants turns tout transform the anatomy of a bird. and technological history, scientific history, has a similar pattern, where someone trying to solve a specific problem in one field, ends up either setting a motion a series of changes or new approaches or new platforms that transform the world in all these unpredictable ways. that's the hummingbird effect i talk about in the book. never history of clean drinking water, we end that episode and the chapter ends with a visit to the texas instruments chip plant in austin, texas. you can see me in the clip. i'm dressed up in a space suit. and this place is one of the cleanest environments on the face of the earth. where they make all microchips, and when you get suited up like this you assume you're being protected from something. you're going into some kind of

contaminated zone. the clean room, you are the contaminant. you are the dirt. and they have to protect the chips from you. and so you dress up -- you actually can't even use soap to clean up because soap is too dirty. and turns out that one of the things that is essential to the clean room and the manufacturing of the chips is what okay call ultraclean water, which is water that is just pure h2o and in fact paradoxically so clean that human beings can't -- it's not really safe for human beings to drink it because normal drinking water has minerals in that our bodies depend on, so if you drink this, it will be bad for you. the producer were like, steven can drink it. we got insurance. but they wouldn't let me even taste it. it's required to do this final rinsing of these microchips, and so in a sense, this technology of making our water clean that we think of in terms of, well, nice drinking water, and being

able to take a shower or bath or something like that, but also in a funny way makes the digital revolution possible.

>> now joining us is ilyasah shabazz, who has written this children's book, "nelson little." miss shabazz, who are your parents. >> guest: my father, malcolm x. my mother, dr. shabazz. two mew handtareans. >> host: what do you remember about your father? >> guest: i wrote in my first book, growing up x, my father coming home, flicker can images, big pearly white teeth, tall, 6'5", very tall man with great presence and always smiling. i remember the way he called my name, with lots of authority, that would stop me in my tracks.

just things like that. sharing cookies together. a beautiful doll i had. >> host: what do you remember about the day he was killed? >> guest: fortunately i don't remember that. but when i was writing "growing up x" ill i realized it had an impact because when my uncle came to visit us, i was four or five years old, and i remember when he was leaving, that it was traumatizing. i just remember crying uncontrollably, and so i knew that somehow that must have been indicative of me missing my father. >> host: who is earl little? >> guest: earl little was -- is malcolm's father. and earl little was actually the president of the milwaukee branch of the marcus garvey

movement, and he helped marcus garvey get out of jail back in the 1920s for the alleged mail fraud, and earl little was a pastor, an activist, a great preacher, he was always these great things that instilled specific values into his children. >> host: where did he live? how did he die? >> guest: gosh. well, earl little they say was killed by a black legion, which was a splinter group to the kkk back in the 1920s, during the great depression, and they put him -- just not the greatest situation but he was killed, and -- >> host: did your father remember that? was he older at that point? >> guest: yes, my nature did talk about it in his autobiography. they perceived their father as this really invincible person,

the great protecter, the great provider, the strength of the family, and he would take his son, malcolm, with him when he did speeches, when he was speaking to the community about self-reliance, about perseverance, about working hard, the importance of education. >> host: what was malcolm little's life like in omaha, nebraska. >> guest: malcolm little -- my father's childhood was exceptional. because he had so many siblings. much like my own, having five sisters, it gives you this sense of just pride, humor, tenacity, makes you a good friend, compassionate, all these wonderful things that were instilled in malcolm by his -- beth of his parents that would enable him to go on in his adult life and become this person,

malcolm x. one of the greatest political strategists. one after the greatest humanitarians. just so many wonderful things because my father was so young. when the world learned of malcolm x he was 28, 29 years old and was killed at the age of 39, and to have made such a significant contribution in such a short lifetime in 12 years, you know, speaks volumes to who he was, and for me as an adult, i reflect on that sense of loneliness, that sense that he must have really felt having sacrificed his life, not asking for anything in return, but the benefit of humanity so we can move forward in a more egalitarian future. >> host: you have a illustration in here of a house burn. >> guest: when my father was, i think about four years old, his

father -- okay. so, his father was an activist also. and he bought land on -- lan at that time which was reserved for whites only, and omaha, nebraska, and so the story, you're not allowed to live here, and so the burned their house down. then they moved to -- from wisconsin to nebraska to michigan. >> host: and who burned down the house? >> guest: the kkk. >> host: when did your father stop being malcolm little and become malcolm x? >> guest: my father became malcolm x once he went to jail at 20. he was in jail at 20. and he was -- before he came out of jail, 1952, -- guess he was -- over old he was -- he

went to 26th, 27 years old -- he became malcolm x. ...