interviewer is meeting with candidates and then at that stage women drop out disproportionately. why? not because the interviewer is consciously biased against women. but there's a natural rapport when you're doing with one who look look you, you have a comfort level, someone is different, different race, different gender, kind of uncomfortable, you feel uneasy, and that may be reflected in your choice of who will be promoted. ...

so that's but people men and women who are in law firms or in counsel should get together with each other and say what do we want and then make it known and then illustrate by your example that you can have a home life and a worklife. one of my former law clerks has three young children.

she has a three day schedule at the firm and they are just delighted with her work. of course she has a whole library at home at your fingertips. so it should be much easier. to have a balanced life than i once was. but don't be shy about speaking up. have company when you do so so you are not a lone voice. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. [applause]

>> thank you very much for being guests, pioneers, civil rights leaders, titans, great nicknames, all those wonderful thing and thank you all for coming. enjoy the rest of your week. [applause] and now on booktv our weekly "after words" program. this week, "new york times" president and ceo subtwo discusses his new book, "enough said" what's wrong with the language of politics? which looks at the erosion of public language. he is interviewed by adrianna

huffington founder of "the huffington post." >> host: mark thank you so much for joining us and congratulations on the book. i loved reading how it started as a series of lectures that you gave at oxford and tell us about that, how it happened. >> guest: i was the chief executive and i knew i was going to be leaving but i was right in the middle of the job and i got a phonecall from oxford university who said would you like be a visiting professor in the art of public persuasion and i said no. i didn't know anything about it. and then i kind of spent about a week, you know the thing sticks in your head and you kind of just letting it seep and by this

point it up in 30 years since i was in broadcast journalism. i have done a lot of reporting and edited a lot of political programs and i thought i had seen changes in the way politicians speak, and the way the media reports what they say, how the media works and changes in public attitudes and maybe there was something to say so i said yes and i thought i will be leaving the bbc and the games in 2012 were in london. i promised my wife i would take six months after the hectic weeks of the bbc. we lived in oxford and i thought giving three likely -- lectures at oxford in the seminar worked very well for that. that was the plan and then before the olympic games i was the chief executive for "the new york times" so suddenly the whole thing was a flurry of trying to organize schools and

apartments and moving furniture so was kind of crazy in and that it was essentially the idea that not baby in a conventional rhetoric that i had something to say about political language. >> host: in fact you really do talk a lot in the book about the more conventional definitions of rhetoric including my fellow greeks dividing the argument and the ethos and the character of the speaker and the emotion that the speaker brings to the argument. before we get to the modern politicians and their corruption of language, tell us about rhetoric at its best. >> guest: i will say if you're

in doubt of anything ask the greek is a good place to start. again i mean i hadn't really thought about it when i got the phonecall but i have quite a good grounding on the classics. i grew up in a jesuit school and i was a very particular jesuit way of doing humanities. each year was named after different steps in learning a practical language so you start with a group called lower grammar and the grammar and then upper syntax and then poetry and finally it was called rhetoric so i had been in a class called rhetoric. so what's interesting is i think aristotle in particular but aristotle and other greeks it's fascinating two and a half years ago they essentially understood

how human beings persuade and so aristotle, he writes a book called the art of rhetoric which is a mixture of a treaty, a mixture of the study of rhetoric it's a how-to guide and partly also if you were an author you could look at the book and maybe learn some tips from aristotle and aristotle learn to very simple but important observation. lots of us go through every bit of the argument because they want to be sure their rights and they have long painstaking arguments and dialectic is the word for a kind of scientific, dialectic looks at complicated questions where there may not be a clear answer but where you can marshal your argument very clearly. most of us don't have time for

that. there's a jury. you are getting ready for lunch and are it's a political crowd and they want you to hurry up and get to the point so one of the basic points about public language when you are trying to persuade someone about policy or to win an argument in a court case is you have got to cut to the chase and that of course is obvious. we are very impatient when we listen to politicians but it's also dangerous because it means arguments get simplified and that will be the example of aristotle which i think is very relevant because attention spans feel so pressed for time today and politicians are so anxious to find formulations of political language which worked like twitter. they work as a strap at the bottom of the screen of "msnbc" or c-span, a few words they are

trying to compress and compress and compress and that means you got a lot of impact but maybe you'll lose some of the power of the language. it gets lost. >> host: but you say in the book is something more profound beyond the fact that the internet and twitter and our attention span requires that because if you look at it, you can say sort of ban imposed structure on language but it can be incredibly profound. >> guest: and really the structure helps. it's almost like a kind of discipline that the structure forces a certain kind of creativity. >> it's not just the fact that it's characters is something more fundamental that has changed that has been diminished why is that? >> guest: before answer i want to say something else that has

been lost which at least in principle. it's a dangerous thing because people have been complaining about the language ever since it started. the other thing is in some ways it's an ideal rhetoric with balance the word you used, argument. the clarity of the proposition and the evidence you are bringing to the argument that they balance that with ethos which his character and the whole way in which the speaker presents themselves and the impression they make. it's very hubris and the emotional state of the crowd and held in balance. it seems a lot of what has happened is that balance has been lost. why? your question.

first i want to say don't just blame the party don't like. it's easy to say oh it's the republicans towards the democrats towards bill clinton or brexit and the united kingdom or whatever. politics has changed in very substantial ways and the kind of natural shape of politics based on class and very clear ideology has become more disrupted and all over the western world you can feel the big traditional legal parties, the mainstream parties under pressure. breaking apart either explicitly breaking apart or implicitly finding it hard to keep their unity. i was in the republican commission in cleveland and it's a party wrestling with unity so they are under pressure and by the way facing new politicians from anti-politicians like donald trump and in italy and

many others. secondly policy and the work of government have become in credibly tension. the economist and the planners and all the other experts are so involved in policymaking and their language can feel very distant from the language of ordinary people so in a sense the rulers, the policymakers and the way they speak and the kind of terms they use is very distant and indeed they have forgotten sometimes how to make an argument. the world's elite in government, in business broadly believe free trade is a great thing. free trade between nations helps open up economies, helps the developing world, helps competition rise but they

haven't made that argument to the public for decades. if you think your job is at risk and you and your family's livelihood is at risk because of globalization and nobody has tried to explain to you why free trade is a good thing it's not surprising if you rebel against all of that them want to reject it. so policymaking has pushed the political elite away from the public. people generally hear this language through the media. c-span is a good example of that we are being disrupted to and competitive pressures on the media are having their effect in the editorial choices and in the media and of course the devices people use now. again, instead of maybe at egg newspaper you have a small paper. that also has an effect of favoring shorter, punchier

phrases which may again be very good at making an impact but not an explanation. the last thing i would say it's over about 100 years marketing has grown very sophisticated and its decline death quasi-scientifics exploration of how persuasion works. using empirical testing testing. it goes back at least to the 1930s. in my book i quote a wonderful volume from 1937 called tested sentences that work and the idea is giving economics and nudge. the idea that by saying something the right way you are much more like you to persuade someone to buy something. over time that got run into political language as well. i think it's an interlocking set of factors which go beyond any

one party or any one country and you can see it happening all over the western world. >> host: you say in the book has gone beyond the 1930s about tested phrases using algorithm to test phrases or politicians doing polling who have come up with the best way to present an idea. there's something else that i would love to ask about. we talk about campaigning in governing and prose so their size than an assumption that government is more technocrat again more complicated but now what has happened is we have lost governing in being able to explain free trade or any other policy and of course your book is coming out at a moment when wherever you are in the political spectrum you are a

gassed at the nature of this particular presidential campaign obviously you started thinking and writing years ago along before you knew what would be happening in the 2016 presidential race. >> guest: i think publishers wouldn't use the word speeding up to say what happened but six months later there were plans. but what i want to say is this. firstly when i gave lectures my friend who asked me essentially what i want to do, he is a modern -- and mark said at the time this is good stuff you are writing. but it's a really new? are we really seeing things which are different from the past and i think you could argue that in 2012 but in 2016 i think

i'm winning the argument. i think i want to say it's about brexit -- brexit and i talked to a number of europeans politics beyond the uk current politics in france as an example but also in the presidential cycle. i think we are hearing things and we are seeing a kind of clash of different political language which is an obvious point to make but i think donald trump really does represent a dramatic break with the conventions of political language in the past. although we can't think of populace in the past throughout american democratic history, some of the stuff that trump has been saying i think feels new

and from my point of view is very interesting because it illustrates a lot of things. >> host: isn't one of the things a complete break between language and reality and basically repeating things even after it's been recognized that they are completely false. one example is the president of the united states was not born here which is a repeated claim and there's absolutely no evidence. >> guest: it's actually not true and by the way i think he pulled back from that. there are still people out in digital nonsense land who want to continue believe it. >> guest: . >> host: he has never gone back and said actually he was

born here. >> guest: he simply moves onto the next thing. >> host: he has never actually said i'm wrong. he was born here. so that to me is just kind of fascinating in terms of where we are and i would like to ask you how much of a -- >> guest: i think it's surprising and hard for the media to debunk some of mr. trump statements in ways in which the people who believe the statements will find convincing. one the things i talk about in the book is about a movement which is essentially a reaction to enlightenment rationalism focused on the use of reason and

arguments based on evidence of facts. a reaction to that, which is part of the broader romantic reaction which says no, one may talk in public what matters the most is identity and solidarity with the community. and what matters is my relationship to you which very quickly becomes key in this. in association with authentic language with nations and with the national community so we talked honestly and i use this word offensive system because i think enough than tickets you know, the idea is in the eye of the holder of the people who struggle and to want to if you

like leverage or exploit the idea of authenticity this really begins the 19th century and of course famously in the 1930s the europeans factions across germany and italy, offensive system becomes absolutely central to their appeal and they tried very hard to distinguish themselves in the way they speak from traditional rational politicians and so they focus much more on stories about us and them. we are together and i'd like you. i'm not like a politician. i am like you and i speak like you. i understand what you're going through. together we can ward off the threat from them whoever that might be. today they might be the elites and we are both members of the

elite by the way. host diamond economic migrant. >> guest: i am an economic migrant myself. they may be an elite technocrat or emigrants and us in the context that drew americans the hard-working middle class who have been left behind by globalization whose contributions to the country are not properly rewarded or accepted or understood and whose values are being undermined by multiculturalism or political correct this. you see donald trump mentions the phrase political correctness and their spontaneous cheering. there's a sense of the culture that has been stolen. in that context what matters is think does the story rang true?

does what the speaker is saying, does it feel emotionally true and if it feels emotionally true, it's kind of factual all be where it may not matter so much. i think the media debunking fact-checking and debugging individual statements by donald trump may well absolutely convince the readers of your newspaper or the viewers of c-span but they never believed him in the first place probably. if they do believe him they think it's the elite media trying to damage him because he's telling the truth. >> host: but isn't there something about the assumption by the media that our job is to present both sides of the story which automatically assumes

somewhere in the middle is hard to find so therefore and you address that in a way seeing any time there's a debate on tv about ovell warming and the producers feel compelled to include somebody who thinks global warming is a hoax or not man-made or whatever so that tends to somehow, the idea of balance or the what is called the view from nowhere, what role has that played in the corruption of language that you describe so articulately in the book? >> unfortunately it's quite complicated because it seems to me in the united states and the uk we have two traditions which are relevant. one tradition is maybe a town hall with a number of candidates

for a particular office where each candidate is given 10 minutes to make their case and the audience can establish agreement. i agree that can often feel like and maybe the truth lies between the campus but that's one example. in a court of law the prosecution and defense are given time to lay out their case and the jury decides which way to vote the verdict. not because they think the truth is when the middle but they have to decide either they are adults here let's see the evidence and get to a firm conclusion. i think the role of the media is to use a phrase from the bbc editorial guidelines of uk is true impartiality so not partiality to find his absolute

balance but an appropriate balance so a simple example would be smoking. there is an overwhelming majority of medical evidence and opinions that smoking is seriously deleterious to people's health. it's not appropriate to give a smoking advocate equal time with the surgeon general. you calibrate how much time you give the skeptic. it seems to me that silencing skeptics on climate change, making the decision not to allow climate skeptics to be heard at all. some scientists believe the skeptic should not be allowed on the air at all. my honesty about that is that's how you start conspiracy theories but if you start to censor your opponent completely a think you begin to make the

public say what's going on here are they not being allowed to speak? i certainly don't think in the case of climate change it's appropriate for it to be 50/50 but i have to say the challenge in relation to the presidential election, it has to be 50/50 in terms of for example the presidential debate. you can have a presidential debate where the producer of the program says we thank candidate a is far more sensible than candidate b so we will give candidate a3 much -- three times as much air time. you have to be honest. >> host: in terms of taking a clear stand as opposed to impartially presenting both views on whatever topic.

>> guest: in the uk there has been bitter criticism of the media for not critiquing in particular the brexit side of the argument more closely. i have to say though i also think that much of the elites was fortified by the results in the uk and the thing they are really upset about is the way the public posted and i think to some extent the media explaining that message, the media got some of the criticism. honestly in that referendum the brexit side, the leave aside had a much more effective campaign than the remain. >> host: also is there something about the media's refusal whether in the brexit case or the donald trump case to use very simple and direct language?

you know in a toxic political atmosphere. for example instead of calling donald trump spews racist, there was a story actually in your own newspaper that described him as a redaction this view would choose an elegant way to not say racist. so is there something about all establishment media that makes us hold back from using very direct language which would make it easier to preserve that kind of language? ..

the risk is you are beginning to tell people what to think. i don't think it is the job of journalist, our job is to give

the people the tools and information to make up their own mind i think donald trump is an extremely clear speaker. you'll had to listen to him about what his views are on a whole range of topics including race i think the public can and will make up their mind. >> whether it is the role of journalists to clearly point out it is a very loaded term where you're bringing judgments to bear within the broad contest. if we believe the person that has been racist are under light -- undesirable. but range from unconscious presidents and the difference

-- disadvantage in the brutality. the issue is in the coverage of politics is to help people form their own best judgment and of course where something is clear and cut. if we stop trying to feel like that and we ought to have part in a political debate it is not for the news pages. pages. one more thing about the media.

they produced part of that visible primary in which basically they did that with the way and perhaps. and basically giving the invisible primary to donald trump long before he was in the polls or anything like that. it was the use of language by the media during that process that did have an impact on those lives. i certainly think you could feel america media on television struggling with the challenge of how to cover donald trump he doesn't represent an unexpected development in american politics let's just put it that way. but also particularly in the context of television and we

spoke about this. utterly compelling viewing for a while. most politicians have a good idea roughly what they say and do hillary clinton would be an extreme example. very familiar voice familiar policies in a familiar way of speaking that many surprises. that may be a very good thing. but very familiar. donald trump he was clearly he was kind of just saying it as it came into his head is very different and i think you could see all of the media kind of mesmerized by this. and it is extraordinarily

phenomenon. it was not meant to work. the playbook was meant to show more familiar politician but they thought that jenna bush have a chance of getting a nomination. we know it wasn't very close to the market. it was an assumption that some more established politicians in the end there be a moment where the momentum and his share quantity would get found out. it didn't happen. and i think the utterly new departments. they take time how to work out how to cover them. you can seat between the primary process and by the summer the coverage of donald trump is more thoughtful it's more critical and i think there is a reasonable chance

that the u.s. media will equip itself really well in the form of election which is really going to begin this week with a formal campaign. when i do think is i'm right at that report. he's onto something. something we tried to do in the uk during our general election campaign. it's to cover the issues which the public are asking questions about. even if the politicians aren't talking about them. for example in the elections in the first decade of the century in 2000, 2010. if the politicians didn't want to talk about immigration and that may well have been a good reason or well-intentioned reasons but they thought that

it sometimes did quickly merge into racism and so forth. best not to talk about it. the trouble was we knew talking to members of the public and looking at the opinion polls that was very high on the public's mind. and so we insisted and actually sometimes in interviews in the news programs and elsewhere actually doing days where we focus on immigration. not because the politicians were raising them. but the public was concerned about it. we thought was right as the politicians how they were going to address the public's concern. i think sometimes they don't have a responsibility if you are there. and asking the questions which relate to what is in voter's mind. more broadly it's pretty clear not just in america but in

britain and elsewhere that we haven't done as good of job in reflecting the breath of issues and concerns the public has had and i think part of the responsibility for the breaking apart of the relationship between the politicians and the public is partly because i'm not sure they've got good enough job and insisting that that dialogue takes place. host: moving to the media and you write in the book about brave promises followed by bland disappointment and how they go back and forth to tween between the peak of expectation to the trough of dissolution. what forces are causing that. our people wrong to expect

solutions from government. how do you see that cycle. i think the first part of it is but politicians overpromising i can see why of course in a campaign i given politician might be tempted to try and bid up working to build a wall and we could get mexico to pay for it another really good example. promising things which you have no idea how you are going to deliver almost certainly means that if you do get elected juergen a disappointed the people who believed it when you said you're going to do it. and so the first thing as i

think promising more than you can deliver which i think they have always done that. i'm sure. but doing it so persistently and so widely i think it is a problem. i also think that the other thing is that policy issues have become across the west they have made this mistake if a accuses b of line or feeling that the public well just blame be. but to me it's like one dr. dr. accusing another of up malpractice. it brings the whole profession down. i think the politicians have the obvious example in recent years has been the way the republican senators manage the

house of representatives. as if they weren't part of washington. and they shouldn't be too surprised when people think less of them as well and regard them as part of the problem because people think they're all politicians. in standing up and saying i hate washington what do you think a sensible person is to conclude from that. miry there if you hate it. why are you up for election. if you think it such a bad thing. i think in many ways the left as well in the unrealistic promises that the left has made over decades about solving every social problem getting rid of every inequality and every sort of

injustice in society we when you look over decades at the results of the major programs that were intended to eliminate poverty and stop disadvantage from minorities and the very limited not manageable but limited results of the program is not surprising that people have become fairly cynical about promises the politicians make. >> what about the use of political language to create that that would allow bigger and bolder solutions to problems in one of my favorite examples is actually i remember reading that novel and being amazed that here was a politician who knew that he have to create a consensus for

the growing inequalities he have to capture the public imagination and here are novel to do that. and that to me was an amazing example of the using language i agree with that. but using it to create a kind of world and bring a world to like. so in a sense of course using language to bring the public with you. all great politicians have done that. what happened to that. in the book i suggest there was a moment in the 70s where the great tradition of public or a tree which takes you from the founding fathers to lincoln all the way through the jack kennedy's begins to

become harder. it means it's quite hard to talk about. all of those language. it's all been lost. he is contriving to talk like that. i just can't do that. ronald reagan i thought i have astonishing register of voices and tones. he could beat mr. stiff and brittle he could be informal and demonic humor constant humor. humor is a wonderful thing and political lang which. both reagan and clinton our good at that. he could get from i'm not really one of them. i'm on your side.

a bit of that anti- politician thing. he could instantly getting there for me in the have of state. with his very lofty turn of phrase. that's a dollars and address on the night of the challenger disaster touching the face of god and in all of this. magnificent and he could somehow sometimes but some very good early speeches from reagan which are entirely written talking about still wonderful a speaker it is i do

think and the great expand of change has do you expand this and but there are good i do largely talk about nash am

sure you are right that a lot of seem to be ideological purity at city and of compromise and i'm and it is

that. the moments where years to present this for all i think it was quite close that are

plagued he is comfortable with the english the like cruise

bravery they and carefully again it's a very big turn it i running a country than someone who is a and the politics and the english they

want to be a service thing the language over the top. if you think about it it's are thinking in language they tried to claim that you can't think in terms of the internet

and it was going didn't play

is being for the space in the they were going to destroy the

genuine i don't think say and do everything it could have its it that appears they and more in it would dramatically

which it is one of the very few ways where people can we might rather who leads the kind in when there each side

encourages the other.

and so i guess i look the things that has been is the and people understand the giving up your and a courteously and politely. and that that these

conventions people will pick their noses inside cars they wouldn't do those in a world with other people. people it very hard to be e-mails you can't see the of that you don't have it believe

it or not really all a set of modest hope at the end and you give that there are still people who care about knowledge