in by the way that was the last time i supported somebody in the primary. so i watch from the sidelines. but with the rules committee. to determine if the money before the primary in did. but that disappointed me because that was unacceptable for me to do my job as chair.

and then put this on the starvation diet. >> host: this was from earlier this week at the miami book fair look for her own booktv in the near future we're at miami-dade college the 20th year in a row we have been here and carried it live from msnbc contributorht charles sykes his book "how the right lost its mind" is this a book about donald trump?. >> no. really is about the conservative movement out that enabled him and capitulated how did the

conservative movement go from william f. buckley or edmund burke to ann coulter? this is the question i had after the election. what were the things that were goingth on?. >> host: seminal moment? years in the making? 2016?. >> i start off with the thesis donald trump was a black swan to take over as a fluke but ultimately that is not sustainable. because of the dysfunction was a pre-existing condition as a a symptom that was a long time coming.

what was the signpost to weapon iss politics when they thought sarahic palin to be the vice-presidential of nominee with the conservative media became a the gatekeeper? there is a lot of potential answers. >> if you were watching earlier he talked to read hisd book for 45 minutes the point is to get your reaction. how do you define your conservatism i greg. >> i'm not sure what that means but this is defined by

the populism by steve cannon or donald trump then i about. but that is based on the principles of individual liberty this goal and personal responsibility but you wonder if that is what the conservative movement is about any more. >> host: kodak to goldwater was there a similar problem at that claim when he got the nomination?. >> i would argue and though. he comes from a different point of view but i think he represented the ideological shift in william f. buckley, jr. play a key role where donaldre trump

represents the rejection of the small government ideas he did something that was crucial that to be taken seriously we have to get rid of the kkk and john birch society. so those that have the moral or political authority i think what is happening now is a rejection that dated back to goldwater. >> to is a contemporary political favorite?. >> vb charles krauthammer hour because the lessons of

2016 when of the book thing is the book talks about take the focus off of donald trump and what happens to the republican party. because now that willingness to rollover to recognize the problems and the rejection of conservative principles. >> from your political standpoint britisher option? -- what is the option?. >> a lot of conservatives are watching what is happening with disbelief to find themselves excommunicated. >> when van jones was talking about his book said to have a great party in danger of taken over by

white supremacist in regard to the g.o.p.. >> i think that is an overstatement. we do have a great party that is on the verge i would say taken over of the darker impulses after charlottesville that is something we should confront but there's a lot more going on but if the republican party becomes the party of donald trump and roy moore ended his political oblivion than there needs to be a reckoning. >> so what is that message that resonated?. >>e those that wanted fundamental change to burn that down. those that give the middle finger to the establishment

politicians that donald trump was a salute for himself but it was really a protest. but in reality there was a lot of legitimate grievances about the economy in the failure of washington to address these issuess but whether or not there was an alternative with the populism and nationalism and there was a way to redress that. >> often win the election happens and they're not happy with the results they say we need a third party. or you supporter of that issue?. >> i will wait and see i voted for the third-party candidate this would have already happened. 2016 was the perfect storm

to a people nobody was happy with that without a third-party then when will you? but it would be nice to break that by neary choice but right now we have tribal politics everybody is in their quarter and as a result you were willing to except anything or any fault or extreme behavior because this is your tribe. >> establish or marco rubio were nominated we support them?. >> yes. >> host: charles sykes the author of "how the right lost its mind" the first call from new york go ahead. >> caller: i am from the york.

boating democratic. i am totally astounded the culture of this country and what it is coming to. it is beyond my comprehension this man has been elected president of the united states did the boggles my mind. i believe there is a problem with the s culture just on the altar right or the conservative it is middle america and it is a shock. i think carly fiorina when he insulted her off the

platform would slap him. >> host: a problem with the cultured. >> guest: he is absolutely right. how many times do we say now that he has said this, of the disabled, the veterans, sexually assaulting livid and we said the people will be horrified but they elected him president. that says more about us than him so i want to turn the focus. . . .v , but what does this say about our reality tv politics and what we are willing to accept. we are post ethics culture and i am old enough to remember when

character matters and honestly something has changed which is why even agile-- after donald trump leaves i'm concerned about the gatt-- damage this is done to the culture and what we have learned about our political culture because that doesn't snap back at the end of donald trumps turn-- term. host: next call from maria. caller: hello. i just want to ask the fact that i was horrified that trump one and i thought it might not be so bad because it didn't have checks and balances and then the republicans will come to the floor and will debate and perhaps not let his agenda go forward and we will also be against trump in the sense that he is so immoral and things like that and then i grew up in queens new york with parents that were very republican and even a line of democrats that were very republican and

they were very anti-communist and so the republicans not to be outraged absolutely outraged that. host: thank you, marie. thank you. charles sykes. caller: there is this-- the russia story will knock away anytime soon, but i'm actually of all the things that have disappointed and disillusioned me about the republican party their willingness to kind of rollover on the question of did the russians actually tried to attack our democracy because again i'm old enough to remember when conservative republicans would have thought that was a major issue that transcended partisan boundaries. it's a american issue. we will see where this goes, but this is one of the more troubling parts i think of what's happening right now, i mean, i understand some of my friends in the republican party say

yes, but we will get big pack's cuts. well, was the price tag for that and will there be a reckoning on what's going on with the russia think? i do not think that should be something to divide republicans and democrats. host: what you think about the republican congress. >> disappointing in the sense that they have aches accommodated themselves so much to this president, but it's interesting that in trump world donald trump cannot fail. you can only be the trade. there's a phenomenon that i find interesting is that kerry truman said the buck stops here. you notice with this president that the bug never stops with him. it's always someone else no matter how much goes on in the house and senate this president will always throw them under the bus and blame them. we will see what they do if we get anything done, but i think we are at a defining moment.

host: herald is calling in from elroy, wisconsin. herald, you are on with former radio talk show host charles sykes. caller: i know charlie well. i listen to him and i think sometimes he's more a democrat than republican. he's so bitter. trump has been so good. foreign-policy rolling back relations. he doesn't apologize and bow. is a strong leader and the supreme court i will tell you something, everybody we have right now and this charlie is unbelievable work thanks for giving my opinion. host: tommy thompson. guest: i think it's tommy's birthday today or yesterday. host: that the random. guest: that was the era where leaders were able to work across the line to get things done, i mean, tommy thompson was one of the original reform governors of

the upper midwest and i think we are willing to appreciate people like tommy thompson more. host: charles sykes, as the parties collect into the right first of all do you agree they are getting more extreme? >> i think the electorate is key more extreme and i think our politics has become more extreme work i think you watch where the voters are going and they are becoming more extreme and i think it's reflected in the political party. host: are constantly from the viewers, i'm in the middle. i'm lost. if there is such a middle where they not affected. >> that's a fascinating question and it's something i'm looking at as a question of is there some sort of common ground between centerleft and center-right and there ought to be on a number of crucial issues, but the reality is that the hard-core base, the jews of both parties tends to be at the extreme so if you are republican elected official you are not actually worried about the general election.

you aren't worried about independent monarch electorates. your way about the primary challenge that forces you to the right. similar things have happened on the left, but it will be interesting to see where we come out of this. at the other end of this will people be tired of these tribal politics or is this big did it our political dna? host: we are lie with the miami book fair with author and msnbc contributor charles sykes with his new book called "has the right lost his mind" and kristi is calling in california. caller: hello. i wanted to thank you, charlie. icu every once in a while on msnbc. i'm very thankful for conservatives speaking up. full disclosure i'm a democrat. i did vote for reagan and i voted for hw bush, but i've moved to the democratic party and have been there ever since.

but, i think its importance for all of us to listen to voices of truth. we all need to find our moral compass in this country again. it's very important. we need to stop looking at party and start looking at what is right and what's wrong because i think at the heart of it all of us are hungry enough for truth. we have normalized the alt universe where facts don't matter anymore and they do in the press matters and people that have a moral conscious that can speak up like you, charlie and for other people that i follow also on the left, i followed-- stephen christie, let's get a response to what you had to say. charlie? guest: thank you for the kind words and also i was on the show recently with another republican

consultant who envisioned what he called the coalition of the defense and i'm like i wonder if there is that coalition out there, a coalition that says who matters. decency matters. i'm hoping that is the case. sometimes you don't really appreciate what you have lost no matter how much you care about something until you run the risk of losing it and i think a lot of americans have been so shocked by the political development are willing to open their mind to some of these ideas. >> another thing you write about and how the right lost its mind is the impact the internet has had on politics. guest: when you think back of how radical our politics have changed, when ronald reagan was president there really was no conservative media. 's fox news was not on the air. there was no breitbart .com. and people didn't get their news through facebook and sent out conservatives were able to win elections, so let's change?

it's been this transformation of the thought leadership on the conservative movement, the dumbing down of the conservative movement. unfortunately, it's made it possible to be this post factual era. i'm not against social media, it's just the tools and it has the mark with ties information, which is a good thing. it's a great thing that the mob-- monopoly of the mainstream media has been broken, but we worked into this alternative reality silo where everyone has their own truth, narrative and really don't speak to one another and that is what is dangerous. host: have you thought about running for office? guest: never i never would. host: why? guest: because i like what i'm doing now some much and why would anyone put themselves through that? host: scott walker, how is he doing? guest: i think he will be reelected this year in part because i think the democrats hailed it to get their act together. i don't think they have a strong candidate, but

the story of the scott walker is a cosh fairytale for democrats because remember all of the protests in wisconsin? the large effect of that was to turn the electorate against them to create a backlash of real support for scott walker. he was underwater in the polls on those collective bargaining until those protests and by overplaying the hand they basically gave him the reelection, so i would suggest to the democrats just yes, obviously you want to draw the line with donald trump, but don't make the same mistake. host: historically parties and they come in the power often overplay their hands don't they? guest: yes and it seems to be getting worse. sort of everyone has a ramming speed. you have this moment of power and even if you have to do it by the smallest partisan margin you push your agenda as

hard and fast as possible. the problem is that it does real damage. it damages the body politics because it means when the other side gets in there they will do the same survey and i think it is one of the things that's radicalized our politics. host: next call comes from kathy, santa barbara california. caller: hello. i would like to know if you think we can get rid of the electoral college the electoral college was set up originally to preserve the slavery and seems like we are still doing that very thing given trumps supportive wife supremacist? guest: i'm going to give you a straight answer is probably not the one you want to hear. no, we won't get rid of the electoral college. i can't imagine any way in which it will go away and also, the reality is we are becoming a much more divided and tribal society. irrespective of gerrymandering, which israel and the electoral college that the larger problem is, is this

tribe was asian, the fact that we are sorting ourselves out on social media to our own world and sorting ourselves out geographically. that the real problem and i think that the gerrymandering and the electoral college in some sense is a symptom of a larger problem. host: go-ahead. caller: mr. sykes, i'm watching you. can you hear me to we are listening. host: go ahead and make your question or comment. caller: my question is, when donald trump was walking down the escalator and you saw him coming down, what was your instinctive feeling about that? how did you feel about that? guest: i thought it was a joke. i didn't think it would be taken seriously.

i never thought it would get traction and i think a lot of people thought it wouldn't get traction. when i describe in the book 2015 as being this long soul crushing disillusioning slog, part of that was why do the republicans not see this. also, it wasn't just when he came down the gold and ask later gave that incoherent speech, but republicans had 16 other candidates almost all of whom would have been strong presidential candidates. i think republicans had one of the strongest president appealed save ever had and yet ultimately chose this guy, so the short answer to your question is i thought it was a joke and probably that reflects how out of touch i am or perhaps how naïve i was about how much american politics have changed and what the conservative movement was prepared to accept. host: jake in washington dc, what would you like to say? caller: thanks for taking my call. i wonder if mr. sykes whose work am familiar with would feel that he

and his msnbc colleagues are a bit hypocritical in their criticism of donald trump. for example, a fuse ago -- a few years ago in 2012 president obama's caught on tape telling about one of vladimir putin assistance to tell that he obama would have more flexibility after election. i've seen no outcry from anyone back then demanding to know what flexible he was, what obama had in mind, why he is whispering and more than a few years ago, but certainly within mr. sykes journalistic career, the left lionized senator ted kennedy, and never brought up the fact that he literally killed a woman at the chappaquiddick bridge, drove a car off the bridge, swam away while she gasped for her life and then lied about it.

do you think msnbc is a little of the critical in their criticism of president trump? guest: first of all, i'm not msnbc. i am myself and so i never defended or rationalized teddy kennedy's behavior and i think there will be reevaluation of attitudes toward people like teddy kennedy, so i'm not sure what-- secondly, back, from obama i remember that very very clearly and i remember that pretty much every conservative in america was outraged or pretended to be outraged. i remember talking about that, so who's the hypocrite, the people who were outraged and concerned when obama said that who will roll over for what donald trump is doing? i have to say again, this is one of the things that's so disappointing. like an donald trump not bring himself to criticize vladimir putin why does he admire it authoritarian thug so much?

i do think that-- look, if you are conservative and you want a conservative on the supreme court i get that. if you want lower taxes i get that, but why do you have to rationalize behavior that would have had your hair on fire if it had been barack obama? i am actually consistent saying if you dislike appeasement with the democrats and they did it, why are you willing to swallow this kind of slavish appeasement coming from donald trump? host: if hillary clinton had been elected president would you be saying? guest: i think i would probably be agreeing when she was right and also criticizing if she was pushing policies i disagreed with and that's it i found going going to happen that conservatives would have continued their critique, but the promises and the election of donald trump has exposed something which was the conservatives are good at what we are against and who we hates, not so much about what we are for and what we would like to

accomplish and that is the problem. i think winning the election has kind of expose the fact that we have become very comfortable with the perpetual outrage machine were being in opposition. when given a chance to govern what is happening it's not an accident that the republicans through every level of government with a man utterly without principle as the president and ultimately they also don't seem to have a coherent operative operating governing philosophy and i think that is one of the things that conservatives in the wilderness will have to reevaluate. host: how about right lost its mind is the name of the book. charles sykes is the offer-- author. evelyn, you are in the tv. caller: yes, charlie. i would just like to say that the right didn't lose its mind. the war right woke up to what's been going on with the obama administration just

doing anything and everything they like to do. syria to benghazi to other things we don't even know about just like the fact that they used this dossier to have the fbi help pay for it to give it some legitimacy so they could spy on donald trump. that's more outrageous than anything. this went on so far. we are tired of the conservative people are tired of laying down and taking it from the left and being browbeaten like we have been. we kept quiet. week went on with your elections and we choose who you give us to choose from, but this time you did not give us the choice to choose from. you gave us one person that really cares about nothing but herself and she used the russians. the russians are all up in her business and that's obvious and i

think the russians were in trump's business he not put them down. he's trying to say he respect the country, helps people, takes care of his country and his countrymen and that's exactly what donald trump is trying to do with america. host: thank you, evelyn. guest: vladimir putin's authoritarian thug who murders people and murders his political opponents and journalists. she said we are tired of taking it from the left, look i did not take it from the left. i spent 25 years as a conservative talkshow host pushing back and making temperature making. however, what we have actually become is we have morphed ourselves into becoming what we claim to be against. we became what we despise. we've adopted the tactics that a few years ago we would have rejected, so if you are upset about the weakness of the obama foreign-policy how can you not be alarmed at the withdraw from the world leadership that

you are experiencing now. america ought to be leading the world. we ought to be this economic freedom and what's happening now is that we are being supplanted, i mean, this is where we need to open our eyes and say if barack obama had them not things that had empowered china the way trump is empowering china, conservatives would have lost their mind quite literally peered. host: next call for charles sykes comes from arthur in port arthur, texas. hello, arthur. caller: hello, gentlemen. i'm looking forward to reading your book because i think it's necessary because i think we have been as you indicated part of a process that's gone on for decades and i will say this as an independent that independence have been backed out of the possibility of electing someone on the national level and in many cases on the state level

because of the collusion between the two parties in doing so and preventing them by restricting their ability to raise money and function in primaries. they may be able to exist on a local level, but above that it's very very difficult and both parties are guilty of that speed went thank you, arthur c2 i think both parties are guilty about it, but there is no quick fix here a quick fix of redistricting archive-- campaign finance reform. there is something else going on in our culture and its much more severe i guess it's a little bit like i see the house burning down and people are saying we need a different lawn service. that's not going to solve the problem and also the problem, if the american people don't ask more of their political class if we don't ask more government and raise our bar, let's not step back and try to blame someone

for the situation we find ourselves in. host: when did you start writing this book and when did you finish? guest: i think i had in my mind throughout the entire campaign. i knew i was going to write and i thought it would be a different book before the election. i left my radio show in the middle of december and got up the next morning at 4:00 a.m. and began writing it in earnest, so basically wrote it from december through february, made additions throughout the year and could update it every week now. host: next call for charles sykes comes from linda, phoenix, arizona. caller: i'm a fan of yours. i watch you on msnbc and appreciate your point of view. my question is going back to earlier when you are asked if you think any republican politician he respect

and i was wondering what you thought of jeff flake and his leaving the congress. by the way, i'm a progressive liberal in arizona, but i appreciate jeff flake. i feel terrible that he's decided not to run. do you see any future for him? he's a decent old-line conservative as i can see. guest: thank you, linda. i have tremendous respect for jeff flake. his broke was one of the greatest things i've seen politics in the long time because you pretty much up to know if you publish a book attacking donald trump in the correct environment that he would be committing political suicide and there was this extraordinary moment when you had former president bush, former republican nominee john mccain, jeff flake, bob corker chairman of the

senate foreign relations committee are speaking out against donald trump saying this is not who we are not who we represent. this was quite a moment, but it was also notable that they were speaking for a lot of republicans who agree with them, but it that are afraid to speak out and all of them are leading the political field, set the moment, jeff flake is going to have to delete in the political wilderness, but in terms of where we are at now, for the republican party , if the republican party might embrace and send roy moore to the united state senate, but reject several like jeff flake, someone who is awful and decent in principle and yet they are embracing some of the nihilist out there who this is a perilous moment for the party. host: next call, a few minutes left with our guest. victoria in kingman, arizona. though had. caller: hello, gentlemen.

pay, charlie. i love watching you on "morning joe" quite often and so okay, it's not really-- i don't know if it's-- well, maybe it's a question. okay, so earlier-- i kind of got thrown for a loop with a couple of your guests. [laughter] host: victoria, can you get to the point? caller: yes, yes, yes. you were talking about how the party had kind of split the parties, the constituents and stop split-- i forgot the term that you had used, but. host: what is your question? caller: i'm talking prior to it happening before trump. i'm talking like back to

party and i think that was having more, you know, mitch mcconnell kind of was making that happen and happen. host: victoria, i'm going to say thank you for calling and. let's look at what she was getting too which is historically the party has always had kind of a split has it in some sense? guest: they have had political tensions and i think also the division between the parties was getting more extreme before trump came along. i know she mentioned that tea party and during the obama administration is where you really had i think the rise of or the continuation of the rise of hyper partisanship. you can trace this back over the decades, but the eight years prior to 2016, you really did have complete oppositional and really no compromise and nothing going on, so

again these are the pre-existing conditions if you have an american politics that donald trump has exploded. again, i think sometimes observers like us are confused by politics and i put myself in this category because we think this is about ideas, policies, a couple shreds, but increasingly it's about attitude and identity-- the politics become more tribal you will see that and donald trump has played this. he understands that his base will stick with him as long as he stays angry and makes the right enemies, as long as he makes the right people angry with him. is that negative partisanship that is such a powerful force in our politics. host: what do you think of his political instincts? guest: well, it's hard to argue with him considering he was elected president of the united states. i'm in the camp of thinking sometimes he stumbles on these things opposed to having a grand vision.

i think there is a lot of lack of impulse control. i think he is surprised by what he's been able to get away with, but clearly he was able to tap into something and the voices that should have held him to account failed to do that. i think that is also a big failure. host: i have heard it said that conservatives prefer to be in the minority because then they can be a little bit superior and fire shots from the backbench. guest: that's been true for a long time, but i think it really became true in the last-- i mentioned before about being in opposition and this is something the conservative movement has become over the last eight years you have to understand that whether it's talk radio or fox news or the scam packs or there is conservatives, anger is what gets you clicks and e-mail addresses and helps you raise money. it's good for ratings and so what happened is

he's soaking and soaking the anger on the outside .. has talked about tom. >> guest: that's premature. i think that -- i agree that donald trump represents a danger, but on the other hand i also think that trying to overturn the election in that particular way, at this point, is just going to embolden and strengthen his support. one of those areas where nancy pelosi is right. keep your powder dry because when the real stuff comes down, which i think it's going toup want to play the camp flight talk about impeachment makes the republican base circumstance the

wagons. >> host: marse, thank you for holding. >> caller: i'd like to give everybody a new rule. the rule of 37. do not elect people to the left of three or to the right of seven. with that being said, i have such respect for republicans such as yourself, nikole wallace, steve schmid, but i see on msnbc, i don't understand how you're still republicans because you seem to understand and care about issues that are so important to me as a dem contract, suchs healthcare,sive rights, voting rights. where do you go from here and do you wish you would have pushed moore for hillary to win, knowing what we know now? >> guest: well, let me answer that last one. i did not vote for hillary clinton. wrote in mcmillian. i knew i lost. i don't get the candidate i want

and either outcome would be something that frankly i decide not want to own and live with. in terms of being a republican, i don't think of myself as a republican anymore because i don't have the tribal instinct. i'm a contrarian conservative and pat mean i can't be part of a political party that has sold itself in this way. snow how much steve schmid smitted and nikole wallace wrestle with this. democrats are horrified. look at it from our point of view. this was our party at one time, these are people we know and have worked with for years and years, and they're doing this, so there's special kind of horror re feel. doesn't mean we have become liberal democrats. it means we are political ore fans right now. >> host: back in the '60s and '70s, kevin phillips worked for richard nixon, and over the years, through ronald reagan and

be bushes, he became more and more disillusioned with the republican party. >> guest: yeah. >> host: has yours been sudden, been building up, your disillusionment with the current state of the party? >> guest: i don't know i would say -- 252015 and 2016 was a shock in part because i thought i understood where it was going and what it was about and believed in. what we found out in that period, this was not true. so, that disillusionment was come pressed for me. in retrospect -- i say in the book, what did i ignore? what did i miss? obviously i perhaps was naive. i should have seen these things happening. should have taken them more seriously. and because it didn't just happen overnight, but it's clearly a totally disillusioning, disspiritting, disappointing experience. >> host: time for a few more calls for our guest.

margie pratts, west virginia, you're on the air. >> caller: hi. i wish i were healthy enough writer to write about how the left lost its mind, because i do believe that our democratic party, we lost our values for the blue collar workerment i'm horrified by donald trump. i'm barely in me idle class. i will be losing my medical deduction and my state income tax deduction on their -- the republican tax plan and the trump voters seem -- those voter are going to be hurt the most by this tax plan, and yet they seem to be willing to follow him off the proverbial cliff. i appreciate your commented. >> host: margie, you started by saying you should write a book called how the left lost its mind. what do you mean? >> caller: i just think that we -- somewhere along the way we

just started the blue collar work d discarded the blue collar worker. i'm from a coal-mining union family. the democrats left us. they seal-a-meal to have gone after the corporations the way the republicans had always done. >> i i don't think we have voice as the milled of the road democrat. i'm not a liberal democrat but i am a democrat because i believe in helping the poor and needy, keeping social security, medicare. that's my philosophy. >> host: margie, thank you. >> guest: something should write that book. that's not the book i wrote because dish joked this morning, the problems of the left, the democrats, put in a box, not my problem, because i'm dealing with my side of this. this is my mine book and the previous ones were about how the left lost its mind.

there's something to be said here. this book for me, though, is trying to figure out what happened in the political party that i thought i understood, that i -- i had a lot of sunken cost here. 20 years being part of this movement to see it being taken over or giving up to donald trump. the point she is make us is we didn't get here overnight, and the democrats need to go through a period of intro entry specifics, too. how did wed abandon the white middle class. how did wed lose mural michigan and ohio and wisconsin, how did athlete voters who from families voted roosevelt. is it something we said? yes, it is. i ram not seeing that introspection on the part of the democrat. >> host: you have been on book tour so hasn't read donna brazil's hoe --"" hacks ," but

maybe that's the counter to your book. >> guest: if haven't readite peter in vancouver, washington. go ahead. >> caller: thank you. watching a little bit of don in brazil and then van jones, think i'm losing my mind. they seem to be coming to the conservative side, not so much in their ability to see the crew consecutive, but i think that mr. sykes, at least their -- what they believe in. i feel that today, the media is almost as much to blame for what happened in 2016 as it is the russians or anybody else. i'm disheartened that a guy like you, who kyles himself a disillusioned conservative, can find himself -- how ick put this

politely -- playing both ends against the middle. that's what i feel, that our politics has come down to. politics has become big business and i'll let you comment on that. thank you. >> guest: i'm not sure what playing both side against the middle is on that particular -- in that particular context. but,ey, this the media ha big role and need to have a wreckenning as well. not only did they give donald trump way too much free, unked eeded media coverage which will look bizarre in media history. they also realize the consequences of squandering their credibility. the loss of credibility of the media is push-pull. a lot us unfair. the allegations it's fake news. and also this is five decade of conservatives saying we think you're biased, could you try to be more fair and not getting much response.

conservatives responded to what they felt was the disdain and the dislike of the media by turning to other media outlets and that's part of the story. >> host: here's the book, it's called "how the right lost its mind." its author, charlie sykes. thank you for your time on booktv. >> guest: thank you. >> book tv's coverage of the miami book fair continues in just a minute. sheryl attkisson will be out here, with the sinclair broadcasting group. her second book is called "the smear: how shady political operatives and fake news control how you see, what you think and how you vote." she will be taking calls and we have a few more events from chapman hall and you'll hear from more authors. while we get charlie sykes off the set and we get sheryl on the

set. we want their from you. michael from miami, florida. what's your comment. >> caller: i just want to make a comment about a lot of trumps advisers -- you hear about steve vaccine ban nonand jared kushner but not of rhetoric of steven muller. how much influence do you think he had in his administration and if it's past, some of that rhetoric is said in the past, is you think it would be controversial and why doesn't the media talk more about it? >> thank you, sir. that's michael in miami. jack is in medford, oregon. jack? good afternoon. >> caller: hello. >> host: please go ahead with your comment. >> caller: send charlie sykes my best hopes because, i don't have

a question anymore because he's not there anymore, but charlie sykes, steve smitted, michaelgoers union, george will, bill crystal, the lineup of previously considered extremely conservative writers and thinkers is more solid than ever to the degree that have come out against trump and trumpism, and i read them every day. used to read them to get my blood pressure up and going. now i read them every day, marveling at what a grasp they have on the thinking of what remains of the american electorate, which is thinking. so, thank you very much for mr. sykes. thank you very much when you put the other middle of the road or formerly conservative authors up, and that's from an

80-year-old former marine, former journalist, who is enjoying the peculiarities of the west coast of oregon. thank you. >> jack, who is your favorite current politician? >> caller: oh, my favorite current politician is -- no national democrats unless you consider donna brazile, the national democrat, but here in oregon, we have two marvels in senator ron widen and senator jeff merkley. i retired here six years ago for the second time. i retired here partly after a due diligent search of the politics of oregon, was it really as crazy as it sometimes seems, which it is sometimes, but nevertheless, there is a basically a liberal democratic

conscience based political environment, which is absolutely 180 degrees from that in the state of texas, where i was born, raised, and went back and became a journalist. those are my favorite politicians right now. >> host: all right. that's jack in medford, oregon. let's hear from lizan in santa rosa, kaz. hi. >> caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. wanted to ask charlie how he could possibly still be a republican? i know he addressed that slightly. and how he could have thrown his vote away by not voting for hillary, sole qualified candidate on the ballot. trump should never have been on the ballot. he is unqualified.

this is the most important job in the world, and how is it that 30% of this population doesn't understand that. i know why they don't. they're not educated. so, i'm as bernie said, just flab flabbergasted and horrified. >> host: another caller brought this up and said that 56, 57 million people voted for donald trump. are you saying that they were all uneducated? >> caller: i think the election was stolen. think voter supression happened. do think voter tampering was done. think the majority of people who voted for trump probably were uneducated. and --

>> host: thank you, ma'am, for calling in itch appreciate it. and as we continue here from miami, we're pleased to be joined by journal gist and awe their, sharyl attkisson, i think you had a chance to listen to those final few calls that we heard, and lizan in santa rosa, california, thinks that people were duped often into voting for donald trump. >> guest: there is that view out there but as i talk about in "the smear" if you actually watched the rallies of hillary clinton and donald trump issue tried to watch almost every one. you talk to people outside the big cities, which i did a lot of, that's what led me to predict in advance that donald trump would be president when so many others cooperate see that. think you get a different picture than the stereotype that

it bandied about. >> host: tie the spear into into election 2016. were there campaigns going on sub rosa? >> guest: totally. 2016 was the emit my of all the factors, whether it's emotional media, smear industry in washington, dc, that's grown to this huge level, all the tack tactics. everything claim into play in 2016. more money was spent -- gazillions -- more by hillary clinton and her supporters than on donald trump, far more, and i guess the lesson is even though, as i say in the book, the liberal side and the hillary clinton side tented to permeate the press, and the narrative against trump was upick questionout and yet he won. the commentary is disease spit me money and the democrats and media against donald trump he defied the smear and that's why

i called them the wild card candidate in the book. >> host: what is the smear industry? >> guest: the smear industry is a collection of groups that i've defined and some of them are paid groups, nonprofits. i'll give examples. pr firms that have crisis management functions. llcs, global law firms. they're nonprofits, charities in some cases. they're web sites. they all work together, they all have components that are designed to take down ideas that they oppose, often by personally attacking the people most eloquent at expressing the ideas they oppose. what differentiates a smear from the truth, because there are often elements of trouble within the smear, but its purpose its rooted in annihilation and those who are directing the smear, often hidden from the public, want to remain inindividualible and want it to look like there's an organic grassroots effort going on when they're actually

pulling the strings, often in a very organized and well-financed way to smear an idea or people or group. >> host: can you put a dollar figure on what the industry has grown into? i think it's multibillions but because it's not broken down that way, let's say every p.r. firm has a come opinion next of crisis management but it's not broken down that way. how much they spend on that. but it's big money. everybody node when the call goes in, when someone has to defend themselves or deflect or wants to attack and a call goes into the crisis management folks 0 their strategic communications people, these are often elements of smears at the most basic level. and there are also many hidden ways that smear goes on, whether they're paid people making comments on the federal register, whether there are people that are paid to rent the use of their anytime to sign op-eds. i would say huge number of op-eds if not the majority are now orchestrated and written by somebody else but signed by someone su. the newspapers know this and the

publications onknow this. it's an open secret. that's part of how ideas are sometimes either forwarded or stopped and/or people are smeared. >> host: we have also been hearing recently about opposition research firms and their role in smearing. is this also a growing industry? >> guest: absolutely. opposition research is key to nearly every serious campaign, unfortunately. if you're just an average american that doesn't want to think that there is -- i guess candidates have to do due diligence. this want to find out what -- sometimes they offer research themselves to find about out whats findable about themselves and that is a big industry and those people are paid a lot of my. >> host: we want to take calls in case you're interested in talking about this topic. 202-748-8200 east and central time zone. 202-748-8201 for those in the mountain and pacific time zone.

so what's your day job these day snooze my time is largely consumed producing my weekly show called "full measure" and it's on sinclair stations nationwide. we're expanding to more spaces. we in 43 million households. and it's basically a straight news show that is going to do stories that have not been done to death all week. for example, my lead story this week, i visit a three countries, the philippines, singapore, and korea to talk about china's bun belt, one road economic policy, which threatens to put the united states in a back seat. in southeast asia. why should we care? aspent a lot of time trying have people explain that and explained in fairly simple terms so people can grasp these concepts they don't have time to research for themselves. >> host: is there a tie-in between your first book, "stone

wail possessed and your second book" the smear. "in consider" the smear "a seek squall. stonewalled covered the time when i was as cnbc and saw the moms to control the news and groups becoming very good at getting their nose under the tent of news organization to influence what we do and don't put on tv. i left cbs and this book takes it further and looks deeply in the industry, inside the industry in a way i don't thing has been done before that has developed largely unseen by the american public but a multibillion dollar industry that hat the smear its roots. what i call the smear. >> host: i don't think you have publicly discussed your personal politics, but in many levels you're presumed to be a conservative. >> guest: i think now that's definitely the propaganda that has been put out, which is fine if people want to think that. i used to be call largely

liberal. the think you can pick peeks of what i have done and make the argue. i'm anticorporate, pro corporate, liberal, whatever you want to cherry pick. try to look at stories that are underserved, maybe others aren't doing to death, or angles underserved on stories and just take common sense look at it and ask questions. i have many devote liberal and conservative fans of the program. have served investigative emmy -- awards -- my recent one for investigating republicans and not liberal bud at follows investigating liberals. most of my reporting, i'm not very interested in politics. don't like it. seems to come into my and people want to pigeon hole what you do but most of what i do is nonpolitical, just watch-dogging whatever the powers may be. >> host: in the smear, thetivebrock plays a large hole. >> guest: dave brock is a fascinating character.

the people i interviewed, both the conservative smear artists and the liberal smear artists alike name him as someone who is uniquely successful at what he has done with his network of nonprofits, llcs, web sites, under many different names to appear that though they're neutral sometimes authorities, to appear as those there's many people behind him and it's really a small group. they've been successful in campaigns who got against hillary clinton or other idea that david brock supports and this billionaire donor is fascinating because he began as a conservative shire artest going after the clintons and then switched sides and became someone who work nor clintons, smearing people on the other side. >> host: sharyl is attkisson is our gust. es per ran a is calling in

locally. >> caller: thank you for taking my call if don't consider miss either a republican or depcrat or independent. i have vote for both parties accordingly. i do any own research and go with who i think is the best for this great country that i love, and i arrived being -- [inaudible] -- in 1967. i find this great country i strongly love so much. after i finish my time here i went to europe, went around europe and different countries because my major is languages so i could see the big difference between those countries and the united states of america.

-- >> host: thank you for calling in. we appreciate hearing your voice and your view. let hit the other coast and let's hear from guillermo in los angeles. >> caller: good morning, sir. thank you. for this enlightened program. i'm a yellow dog democrat, and i've voted straight democrat since jimmy carter, and when donald trump came down the elevator -- the escalator -- i'm sorry -- i knew he was going to win. he touched something in me i never voted for him, would never vote for him. i despise the man. but he touch a nerve. i knew he was going to win. i predicted it. used to have a show on the spanish radio. even told people, i'm hispanic, immigrant, but he -- so i'm quite disagree with the author. i don't think it's so much the

smear, is that people did not realize that donald trump represented -- he was touching a nerve -- the immigration issue was organic. knew somebody who would touch the immigration issue will win, and -- >> host: all right. guillermo, thank you very much. does the smear cover the 2016 campaign and whether or not there were forces working for either hillary clinton or donald trump? >> guest: that's a big part of the book in the end. we planned to just sort of wrap it up after the election with the results, and then that happened and the fake news trend happened and i dug into the origin of fake news and the phrase, which i considered propaganda, and i wanted to say, yellow dog democrat means he has maybe some left liberal tendencies. trying to remember, maybe fiscally conservative -- >> host: no, yellow dog democrat is somebody who will vote for

the democrat even if it's a yell dough dog. the blue dog democrat is the more moderate democrat. >> guest: when it was the other caller. we asked people about their political leanings and the gentleman that just spoke -- said he would vote for trump even though he is a yellow dog. >> host: he would not vote for him unless the touched a nerve -- but he touched a nerve. >> guest: many americans are not in a box. if you say are you liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, many americans are on a sliding scale. may feel one way on some issues and another at other issues and are in a bit of a frustration depending on -- in a state of flux depending on their experience, and people are booked in and i talk to a lot of people who don't feel comfortable in those boxes.

>> you talked about looking for the origin of fake news. >> guest: when it rolled out felt look the rollout of a pop began da campaign. when from -- i googled this, almost never in use as a phrase to suddenly every headline every day and i remember when president obama first introduced this, not by chance ex-spoke at carnegie melon and he said there was a need for people to curate the news. said no one is clamoring for curating the news. so i did some investigation and learned i create the origins of the efforts in september 13, 2016, when a nonprofit called "first draft" came up with the idea to go after news hopes and fake news and then the rollout. president obama got on were the news every day was talking about it, hillary clinton got on order and initiated as a liberal effort to steer panel away from stories they didn't like and some were blatantly false. some conservative misinformation web sites for example.

but at the heart feel like it was possibly an effort to reiner to information, the last place where it's free, and people can go on the internet and the immediate use doesn't control and it the democrats or republicans don't control. i looked into who funded "first draft" because i like to follow the money, and they're tax filings were not filed even though they're a nonprofit. they told me their funding came from google, and google's parent company is run by eric smitted who started this first draft initiative around the beginning of the election cycle, and eric i eric smitted smitted was a top hillary donor and looked like a coordinated effort to folk accuse people on fake news. ...

>> host: could take a phrase and it would reach president obama. i mean, there had to be a line there, and you see that line as going through google and eric schmidt, correct? >> guest: yes. i see that there was an effort on a broad scale among the people that shape narratives every day in the news the put fake news on the plate of americans. there was a plan, there was a rollout of this campaign. but it got out of their hands, and i think donald trump may be the only politician that could have done what he did. every time they called him that, he called them that. and pretty soon, "the washington post" -- who loved that phrase for a while -- was crying uncle and saying we need to stop using that phrase. so, you know, part of the

mastery of donald trump in his own ability to turn around propaganda or initiate his own propaganda. >> host: sheryl atkinson's most recent book is called "the smear," and martha is calling in from wichita, kansas. >> caller: hello, ms. attkisson. i'm calling because i recently saw a program on hbo called last week tonight with john oliver, and on that program he was giving a story of the one-sided kind of national feed that was sent through sinclair stations to their local networks on their local news programs and showing that the story was not changed in any way and read exactly the same on each station. and i don't remember the story,

but it was rather one-sided. and i don't know if you're familiar with that program. but my question, i think, is relationed to sinclair -- related to sinclair broadcasting. and you may not know their politics too much, but do you think that sinclair broadcasting is supporting a bill to release various companies in local markets in the control of multi-local stations and newspapers? if you understand that question. [laughter] it was, again -- >> host: martha, i think you're referring to the media ownership changes that the fcc is looking at currently. >> caller: exactly. >> host: sinclair is looking at a merger with the tribune broadcasting company. sheryl attkisson, anything there

that you can or will address. >> >> guest: yes. i can't tell you about corporate policy. my program is done under sinclair, and there's been a large propaganda movement, people who normally wouldn't hear about owners, now comedy shows that are part of the propaganda campaign to attack sinclair which is seen as a threat by the people who dominate the media landscape and people of certain political affiliations. sinclair's owner is a conservative wealthy, i think, billionaire, just as i worked for liberal billionaires when i worked at cnn and cbs, there are people connected politically who work at the top of these organizations who contribute money to democrats and republicans. i don't remember everybody questioning it when i worked for the liberal people for 30 years. it didn't really impact, as i saw, our news on a daily basis. those corporate bosses did not get intertwined with our daily news coverage.

now, there were other issues that did happen that i write about, but it's not as though sumner redstone or ted turner came into the newsroom and influence ared our coverage. in fact, i think ted turner worked really hard at cnn to make us stay factual at the time. likewise, sinclair at the top, the conservative who does head sinclair has not interfered with my program. i've had no interference compared to cnn's -- i'm sorry, cbs toward the end had a great deal of interference. it's been a freshness that i can't describe to be able to go into another independent program that doesn't try to shape the news and put out narratives. these are legitimate questions to be asked. i certainly don't blame people for saying, gosh, sinclair is own by a conservative guy, what does that do for your news, but i would say in fairness, liberal

networks send out one-sided information that are seen by more people than the sinclair station. you have to dig in and wonder why only one station owner is getting all this press on comedy talk shows and on capitol hill when the others have existed in that same bailiwick for so long kind of unquestioningly, at least by the same people. >> host: who is the owner of sinclair? what's his name? >> guest: david smith. he's probably not the owner, he's just the one i dealt with when i was being hired. we discussed about my program being independent, and i said, you know, i wasn't really planning to work again in the business necessarily. and when they propossessed an idea for me -- proposed an idea for me just like a program i used to do at cbs, i said it cannot be conservative. it cannot be any more conservative than any stories at cbs were conservative or liberal. and he said you don't worry about that. he goes if you just tell people the truth, they'll probably be

conservative. [laughter] i said, well, we can tell the truth and haven't had really a bit of interference. so, again, less interference working for the conservative billionaires than i certainly had at cbs the last two years working for the liberal billionaires. >> host: thus the book, "stonewalled," your first book. you alluded to this, but the power of the internet when it comes to the smear campaign. >> guest: you know, i almost got chills when i was speaking with one operator who's a military guy who said, you know, we can start a whole movement in 140 characters and a handful of fake twitter accounts. and you look at the solicitations the government has put online, we're soliciting software for people to maintain social media accounts, fake social media accounts, but it looks like they each have individual ip addresses that rotate. they do it with connections where if you look up these people, they'll have friends that look real, and they'll be friends with people you know.

they look like they do things and go places. why are the government, political forces maintaining these fake accounts? well, they know social media's the number one way to influence opinion right now whether it's votes or whatever ideas they may want to go out. and they virtually control that dynamic in many ways. when he talked about that, it kind of gave me chills. i also say that, you know, a rumor or innuendo or fake news if you want to call it that, that would have been seen by relatively few people and died quickly before the internet can now develop a global following overnight and manipulating images in photography and video to make it look like something happened that didn't, this stuff has just been, you know, kind of vomited out there on our landscape and is, you know, hard to separate fact from fiction. very difficult. >> host: let's hear from another caller, and this is elizabeth in crested butte, colorado. hi, blood test.

>> caller: hello. you know, i'm about to lose my mind. i'm tired of being patient with everybody. i think donald trump is a depraved moral coward and his supporters are deliberately ignorant and dumb as a box of rocks. thank you. >> host: and that was elizabeth in crested butte, colorado. barbie is in newark, new jersey. bar by, you're on -- barbie, you're on with sheryl attkisson. >> caller: hi. my brother once told me, barbara, you have enemies, and then he wouldn't tell me who my enemies are, so maybe my own brother is my enemy. plus, i've been banned from academic associations, and they wouldn't tell me why i was banned, just that i made people uncomfortable in my presentations. and i just wanted to know how does a person, an individual who doesn't have much money, how do they find out if they do have

enemies if they're laughed at and called crazy and paranoid? you know, a lot of paranoid people are called paranoid, and then they find out we're telling the truth, you know? people are trying to kill me, and then they get killed. and the other thing i wanted to know, do you know what newsstands for? and then the final thing, do you know anything about dark social -- >> host: okay, barbie? >> caller: yeah. >> host: barbie, tell us what does newsstand for via ben franklin? >> caller: north, east, west and south. >> host: very good. thank you, barbie, for calling in. without addressing whatever barbie's situation is directly, have you ever been the target of a smear campaign, high level, low level? >> guest: well, yes. i mean, that's kind of the genesis of "stonewalled" and "the smear," that i saw these

organized groups going against not just me, but pulitzer prize winners, new york times expert reporters when they would get too close. it almost is as if you can expect more organized blowback from them calling the station, calling corporate forces, working on social media against you to controversialize you and your reporting. the closer you get to an important truth, the more of that you'll see. and i remember saying to a lawyer some years ago, i said this industry that's manipulating the news and calling and pressuring us, i said they've got nothing but time. this is their job, time and money. and is we're ill-equipped to kind of fight back. we're always playing defense after the fact which isn't very effective. shouldn't we be developing some sort of strategy so that we though this exists, we know what's going to happen on social media when we get close to a good story, but nobody had the time. you know, we're just busy covering the news and doing our job against these industries who are well connected.

they will do questionable things and perfectly legal things, but they have a lot of money and time to controversialize reporters and stories to try to stop reporting on a line of inquiry. so, yes, i've been targeted with many smears, but when i go to the investigative reporter conferences and i have other journalists complain of the same thing but in a fearful sense because it's not as though they fear the groups like media matters or the conservative equivalents that try to do that, but they fear that their bosses listen to them. they know that these are astroturf efforts that don't genuinely represent a segment of the public the way they pretend. they know what it's all about, but they're afraid their bosses are moved and motivated by these social media campaigns and by all the pushback and the quasi-news blogosphere that's largely controlled by these people that will write articles that support them. it's a beat network. so, yes. and the woman was talking about being called paranoid and all of that. those are key words that are

used that have been tested that are very effective to use against your enemy if you're a propagandist. you call them mentally unstable. there's certain words that you'll see over and over again when you, when -- kind of a way to detect that a smear might be going on because there's key phrases and words they use against people and ideas. >> host: so earlier on today here at the miami book fair we were talking with author jefferson morley about his new biography on james angleton of the cia. he was talking about how mr. angleton had developed kind of a deep state within the state. when it comes to this smear campaign and politics, do you believe that there is a deep state, a subrosa state within the state controlling? >> guest: i guess it fends on how you -- it depends on how you define it, but i know because i had many great sources under the obama administration, many sources under the trump administration in different federal agencies. some of them were there under

clinton and bush. some of the same people persist from administration to administration. and i often argue it's not the president at the top that is pulling a lot of strings, it's that group of faceless bureaucrats that most people don't know their name, but they're controlling the information that goes up to the president, and they're controlling information that comes down and are making sure certain things do and don't happen. there definitely is that, you know, that layer, and everybody who's been in d.c. long enough knows that. we know people who work in that layer. i'm not sure if it fit it is criteria of deep state -- fits the criteria of depp state, but there definitely are people whether it's obama, clinton, bush or trump who disagree with that president and just wait it out because they know they will be there longer than that president will be there. >> host: next call comes from jane, joshua tree, california. jane, good afternoon. >> caller: good afternoon. i'd love to speak to sharyl's

first statement or very early statement that -- [inaudible] control the news. and that gets my goat. i'm a person that loves radio. i was traveling across the country to take care of my elders in washington state and new mexico, turned on that radio dial, and year by year the radio -- the viewpoint on that radio became narrower, narrower and narrower. i live 20 miles from twentynine palms marine base. i get up into the high desert. i turn on my radio dial, and it's four very, very far-right christian preachers yelling at anybody who doesn't think exactly the way they do are evil. and then it's rush limbaugh on three channels at the same time spewing hate. this kind of vitriol and hatred

that's been infecting the airwave withs for 30 years and now is at a crescendo point where radio stations in san francisco, radio stations in santa fe, radio stations in seattle, all alternate voices are gone except for maybe an npr station. you know -- >> host: all right. jane, i think we got the idea. conservative radio and then jane's view, a takeover of radio. >> guest: i have not studied that phenomenon. i don't refer to it. i do know there's just the general idea that liberal interests control much of the broadcasts and conservative -- television broadcasts, and conservative interests control much of the radio broadcast. when i'm talking about control of the news, i'm not speaking to the industry bandwidth and that sort of thing. i just don't know about that. i'm talking about how special interests from both parties and corporations have been able to, as i say, get their nose under the tent in newsrooms. not just influence us with their

talking points and their lips and make us report what they want to report on a given day, make us focus on that, we've also sured them in our newsrooms as analysts and pundits and sometimes managers and reporters. so now there's very little difference between the talking points we would be getting from an outsider and the talking points that you'd get when you turn on the news, and there's a reason for that. some of the people who work there aren't interested in journalism and giving the facts, they're interested in promulgating talking points. and because we often invite both sides on, we call it fair, when all you're getting is either state-run media or to propaganda or corporate propaganda, in my view, rather than reporters digging up original stories that people do not want to see on tv. if someone brings me a story, that's usually a story i don't want to tell because enough people are telling it, or i see that as a diversion from something else that could be more important. but too often today it's very easy for someone -- i don't know if people know this, but p.r. firms and law firms and so on bring stories to reporters,

bring research, bring theirives, have -- narratives, have them on e-mail lists. and reporters often, especially quasi-reporters in the non-journalist world, that sort of mix of blogs and so on that do some news and some other enough, they will lap that stuff up and further it without their own investigation and research. and this is what i'm talking about when i talk about control of the news. >> host: sheryl attkisson, a couple years ago maybe during the 2014 congressional campaign the koch brothers became a big issue and kind of a, an evil, evil issue for the democrats. they'd be on the senate floor, and harry reid would rail against the koch brothers, and it turns out that most americans didn't know who the koch brothers were. but did that begin as a smear campaign, do you know? i mean, was that a coordinated campaign? >> guest: well, yes. that was definitely coordinated, although as i say at the heart of many smears as my definition

in the book is there are grains of truth. the reason i call them smears is because the people who are trying to troy other people's ideas -- destroy other people's ideas are often trying to -- they have political interests that are rooted in annihilation of a target. it's not so much that they're really trying to expose what they say on the surface, they're trying to expose, they're trying to remove an enemy or an effective spokesman for a cause, for example. the koch brothers are interesting, i googled -- in fact, i googled today because someone raised this question. there are so many charts done on their ubiquitous ties and all the groups that i've done in my book, "the smear," they're so easy to find. so many people have focused on the koch brothers. and i started to focus on them a bit, but they pretty much stopped back in 2016. they're in my book, but not in the starring role they might have hadthey had supported trump versus david brock and his group

supporting hillary clinton. the koch brothers, like many republicans or conservatives, did not like donald trump and did not spend money on him. they kind of sat it out which is, i think, very unusual. but it's part of the reason why hillary clinton far outmatched trump in terms of the fundraising. >> host: next call comes from guy in reading, pa. hi, guy. >> caller: i just want to put this out there, that i think the birther movement got trump elected. i think it's because there's a lot of hate out there -- [audio difficulty] highest office in the land. a lot of people were not even political. but they decided that they were going to vote for trump because, in their words, he speaks their language. >> host: guy, i apologize, i'm going to have to hang up on you. i was having trouble.

the first words i heard, and then this was a lot of break-up. but he talked about the birther movement. did you trace that one back to an organized smear campaign? >> guest: yes. i mean, according to those who were first to report on it, it was started by hillary clinton, her supporters when she was running against barack obama. there were quite a few smears from her very expert smear artists that were allegedly responsible for quite a few of the big smears against barack obama when they were competitors. and then the conservative side picked up on those, the smears that were generated in some cases by hillary clinton. the conservatives liked those and took some of those and they took on a new life of their own. that, i believe, there's pretty good documentation i mention in the book, anecdotal by reporters involved, that that was pitched to them by one of hillary clinton's smear artists. i think it was blumenthal, sydney blumenthal. >> host: investigative reporters, and tell me the if

i'm wrong, really can't be chummy with everybody, can they? i mean, like a political reporter, you become chummy with all the other political reporters, but you guys are a special breed, aren't you? >> guest: before i was an investigative reporter, i was not chummy with these people. [laughter] they don't see me as, i don't think, their friends or allies. and a lot of people in my industry do pal around with, you know, they live in the same community with people, they see them all the time. i don't. i live way outside of d.c. so far outside of d.c. it takes me two or three hours during rush hour the to get there. and i just don't move in that world. i don't get invited to parties. once in a while if i do get invited to parties, i don't usually go. and i'm comfortable there. i like being sort of outside the circle looking in. i think it just gives me a different perspective, and it's probably what helped me become an investigative reporter who could turn up things that in some cases other reporters weren't turning up because i'm outside the bubble a little bit.

>> host: we had katie tur on this program yesterday from miami, and i asked if journalists were legitimate targets for, you know, politicians, for criticism, and she said, no, but they're easy targets. >> guest: well, i'd disagree a little bit. we are easy targets, and i think we're legitimate targets. i think a lot of the criticism that we are getting as an industry today -- and i say this in "the smear" -- is of our own making. and i don't mean every person. there are amazing reporters still doing great work. but our job is getting harder because of trends in the industry that we've allowed and that our managers have allowed that do draw criticism and should draw criticism, in my view. so i feel like we're easy targets, but in some reasons -- in some instances there's a reason for that. >> host: and let's hear from charles in billings, montana. hi, charles. >> caller: most americans seem to have forgotten the smear campaign that went on by our own

congressional people existence hillary clinton over benghazi. they spent millions of dollars and investigated over and over and over and over again. would you consider that a smear campaign? >> host: thank you, charles. >> guest: i would say there are elements of a smear in that story as well. grains of truth that were escalated beyond proportions in some cases would be normal. but i have to say there was a lot of fodder there. so they weren't generating a lot of stuff out of thin air which sometimes happens. and i will say that in many cases there are elements of smears on both sides. so you look at bill clinton, this is categorized -- this is discussed in the book -- the clip -- the clintons were smearing the women who were accusing bill clinton. but at the same time, clinton was being smeared by a very well-organized campaign from the right which included david brock back then before he went to be on the left.

so i think in any big national discussion you might be able to find efforts that i categorize as smears on both sides of the discussion. >> host: what's the best praise that you've received personally, and what's the best criticism that you've received personally for "the smear"? >> guest: i guess the best praise is that people feel like they really got a peek inside a shadowy industry that they knew almost nothing about and that they now know how many of our images that we run into in dale today life on the news, parodies, talk shows, comedy shows are orchestrated by these powerful forces. the criticism i get, i think, i hate to say it's from people who haven't read the book, but they say something like all your examples are on one side. well, that's not the case. it's factually incorrect. there are people who haven't read it but may be listening to

other critics. i've heard -- i read some of the reviews on amazon, the negative reviews. there's not very many, i got really good reviews. some of them said it's stuff i already knew, some of them said i didn't go deeply enough into some of the things they were interested in, that sort of thing. >> host: and you do use examples from both republican and democratic sides. >> guest: yes. for example, the swift boating smear of john kerry, i talk about the conservative smear artist dr. evil, i talk about roger stone who's infamous in conservative circles for his smear efforts all the way up to today. i mean, there's just -- i don't i, i don't represent this that is an encyclopedic look, it's an anecdotal look. i talked to liberal and conservative smear artists, and i took the lead from there them as to what they saw was important, who were the important players. some people have criticized i left out the southern poverty law center which some conservatives think is a big liberal smear group. i just did not have good

information on them. i tried to write about the topics and the groups that i had good information on from sources or other means and not just trying try to rehash. just because someone's in there and not in there doesn't mean i view them as a smear group or not a smear group. it's not encyclopedic. >> host: what's an astroturf campaign? >> guest: i talk about that a lot in "stonewalled." it's fake grassroots. it's not a term i made up, i forget who did. but it's designed to make it look like there's a grassroots effort of ordinary people maybe against somebody when, in fact, it's a very well-orchestrated and usually well-financed movement by a group of people that want to make it look that way using social media, news, web sites and so on. and you'll see a lot of tactics in "the smear" about how exactly they go about that. >> host: dennis in sumter, south carolina, you have 30 seconds.

>> caller: yes, i just want to say there's autocrat people out there and -- [inaudible] and may jesus bless you all. >> host: dennis -- >> guest: you didn't even take 30. [laughter] >> host: thank you for that call. the most recent book is called "the smear: how shady political operatives and fake news control what you see, what you think and how you vote." her first book, "stonewalled: my fight for truth against the forces of obstruction, intimidation and harassment in obama's washington." she is currently the host of "full measure with sheryl attkisson" which can be seen where and when? >> guest: depending on your stations where you live, you'll have to look at your local listings or fullmeasure.news under about. but you can watch it anytime at fullmeasure.news. >> host: fullmeasure.news. thanks for being our guest here in miami. >> guest: thanks for having me.

>> host: more coverage from the miami book fair ahead on booktv on c-span2. we are going to go back to chapman hall on the campus of miami-dade college. and now you're going to hear from les standford, a novelist and historian, and he's written a new book which is being turned into a movie called "the man who invented christmas." this is about charles dickens. this is live coverage on booktv on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

please giver them all a round of applause. [applause] >> also we are so fortunate to be part of a community of people who care about book fairs, literacy, et cetera, we have so

many friends of the fair in the audience today, so please give yourselves a round of applause. [cheers and applause] as customary, i ask that you please turn off your cell phone. know that we will have a q&a at the microphone. please be brief and concise and also -- i hear the chuckle. i also we will have a signing area to the right of the elevator. without any further due, this is a particularly special panel because we have with us, one of the founders of the book fair mitch kaplin. please give a round of applause. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. >> you're welcome. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. >> that's very kind of you. you know, i've been doing this for 34 years. [cheers and applause]

>> i probably -- you know, i've been the ed mcman for 5,000 authors and i have never been nervous, this is the first time i've been nervous doing something like this. my fellow folks ought to be coming out. [laughter] >> so as many of you know because i haven't kept it a secret. i've been involved with a film a man who invented christmas. it's a remarkable film and it'll be premiering november 22nd, this wednesday night and it's really -- and i had the time of my life doing it. and what i thought we would do at this program is sort of give you a bit of an anatomy of the making of a film from a book. so it'll be instructive as to all that happens because we know so many books become films,@not

an easy process. it took us nine years to get made. you'll understand what it did do that. i will introduce everybody from the panel and show a trail e from the film i just want to say it's not the music that you'll see in the film, we have michael dana who won the academy for life of pie's music during the music but it's still a pretty good music, i think. i'm going to go and start on this side. this is ian. yes. [cheers and applause] >> ian is from the mob film company in london. not the mob, but the mob. [laughter] >> film company in london and he's been coproducer since 2009 with us. he's been known for producing series adaptations. you all know him. yes? he's the best-selling, the color

of magic and hog father of books and i also had the opportunity to see a documentary which i'm hope to go bring -- hoping to bring to miami called cruel and unusual. documentary of three guys in liz and they were were 40 years in solitary confinement for a crime they did not commit and it's a very powerful documentary and we are hoping to bring it to miami. [applause] including don deal me mystery

series. [laughter] water to the angels, and the man who invented christmas which is why we are here today. [applause] >> now, i told you that i started about ten years ago and i could only do this because i started a film company along with two local folks and i don't know if they are here but it's marvin and lisa who are not with us this afternoon but the real person who i could start with a producer, paula who is right here as my partner. [cheers and applause] >> my partner in the kaplin company and award-winning producer in her own write. literary material which is why

we get along so well. she's taken numerous plays from state screens including something y'all know, the search for signs of intelligent life in the universe and the vagina monologue, actually. she also produced karina karina with whoopi goldberg. gerard butler and abigael. she's now partnering with me obviously, i don't know why she didn't wait but i think we are going to start a good role right now and she -- you know, our company, she'll talk a little bit about it i hope too, in addition to this, we have -- how many of you read the literary and potato peel society? that will be coming out in april. how many months, 11 months, 14 months in london and dublin trying to get all of this done.

she gets my most viable player award for helping. and then we have barrett, our director of the film. gave him a director's nomination and life on mars garnered the international emmy for best drama. he followed these with tsunami the aftermath, something i saw on hbo, a mini series which dealt with the heroine events of

tsunami from work on the series, nominated for emmy as standing director. cast members of that included tony and -- i can never pronounce his name. wonderful actor. and then he did a feature film that i love, i'm sure you've seen that with amy adams and francis and that film led to work at warner, sony fox and numerous other studios and networks including return to his roots when virgin tv show spooks. he worked with us on the set and i came not knowing him when i came to dublin to watch this film being shot and he was just remarkable. his interplay with the authors and this film as you'll see kids involved as well and his empathy for kids and the way was able to

work with them gave me kind of a renewed respect for what directors really have to do and that's barrett. [applause] and then robert michaelson, taught me along with ian moore about the financial aspects of film-making, i thought book-selling was difficult. award winning canadian film producer and many films hard choices which premiered at sundance. roller boys, si-fi called classic nominated for saturn award. pros and cons. and travelers, mark wahlberg and bill paxton which premiered at south by southwest.

la times called the spinel pap of surf movies which was great. he's a server as well. you need to know. and robert is also member of the broader family because robert and paul are married as well. so that's a really nice thing. we safe money in hotel rooms. [laughter] >> right. so i thought what we would do now lower the lights an you'll get a sense of the man who invented christmas from the trail. ♪ ♪

[inaudible] ♪ [inaudible]

[inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪

[cheers and applause] >> thank you. that's just the beginning of it. a film out of a book, i thought we would start with all of the players who were involved in this very, very and difficult process. let's start with les who can talk about the material and the book and what drew him to write this book. >> well, is this working? can you hear me out there? yeah. people often ask me, are you happy with what they did to your book? [laughter] >> i can say i'm very happy that my book could be the starting place for what i i think turned out a great film. i had some exposure to the

notion that maybe every word in your book will not make its way to the screen and i'm so tickled that susan, the screen writer from canada and barrett decided to take this book in the direction they did which focuses really on the creative process. when robert first came to me, mitchell told me about your book and i think i can make a film about it. you know it's about a guy writing a book. [laughter] >> hesaid, yeah, yeah, but we've got that covered. normally you might supposed that what you would see a series of scenes of fellow with paper and what a writer goes through when he's struggling with the process

of bringing idea into a form that will actually captivate readers and i think that susan has done a terrific job of imagining the actual interesting things that go on inside a writer's head when, what a writer is really doing in most cases in forming a novel is running a little movie inside her head and then if i understand -- finds the words to get that in paper where people can appreciate it and i think what you see in this film is a very accurate -- and very entertaining, i have to say representation of what charles dickins, goes in one ear and out the ear, a genius like dickins, names, incidents and memories and profound experiences of life

and finds a way to weave those all together into a narrative, well n case this turns out to be one of the most popular books ever written. one that 175 years later people still take time at -- in the holiday season to sit down with their families either reread or watch one of the dramatic and representation and while they have a new one to watch because from my money the new favorite scruij -- scrouge is christopher plummer. well, i went to graduate school and we didn't spend any time on christmas carol because i don't know, i think that my professors thought anything that popular wasn't worthy of serious inquiry

to think of that. i thought just the opposite, if anything remains so popular for so long, isn't it worth time to figure it out. when i found out that charles dickins had to publish book, they told him to lie down until the urge passed, a ghost story about christmas and he was so upset by that and certain that he had had the best idea to date that he told his agent, i will publish this thing myself and forester said, you don't have any money, dickins, well, forester that's where you come in, helped him raise the funds so that in six weeks write and have illustrated and found deliver -- advertise and deliver to bookstores in six weeks and sold out all 6,000 copies

immediately. dickins by the way was at the nateer of his career. famous for having done oliver twist and the old curiosity shop. the last books published had gone terribly for him. he was ready to quit, move to continent and become a travel writer, when i realized how close we came to not having a christmas carol, that's when i was convinced that this was a story worth telling. >> thank you. [applause]

robert, why don't you talk about that story a little bit. paula. >> so, yeah, mitch sent me the book and our process is mitch sent me the book and the process is i wake up and there are things in my inbox in santa monica where we live, how about this? this could be a good tv series. this is a great movie. [laughter] >> there was this book by les and i said, sounds intriguing, send it on but, you know, sent the book, read it and thought, this is great. i have absolutely no idea what to do with it and at that very day, robert, my husband came into the office, i just got a call from the canadian brocast company and they're looking for an event film, maybe christmas or something like that. [laughter] >> and i was like -- what do you think? and it was just curious and robert took it, he's canadian

which canadian government actually gives you money to help you make films which the american government does not and that was really handy being married. and robert ran with it at that point and went out and found the writer susan who is fabulous and started working on putting it together as screen play and first iteration was actually television, it was a short moment and then we looked at it and we thought, you know what, let's -- let's take a big leap that we can put this out in the theaters and that it's going to work at the feature and we took what was tv script and we completely reworked it into a feature script and, you know, compact it into a 90-minute piece. >> thank you, paula. [applause] >> yes. >> we will move to robert. robert, when you saw that and i know just because i know, we went and jumped through a lot of

different hoops and went down a lot of different roads, why don't you talk about some of those and talk about how the mob got involved as well. [laughter] >> okay. charles dickins wrote the book in six weeks. it started when i talked to cbc and were looking for a canadian movie, i've never done a christmas movie before but i like finding genres and bending them and when i heard about charles dickins, my image of charles dickins, classic picture of him as old man bent over his desk writing and that was the image i had of him and i started reading the book and here this is, this is a 31-year-old, 29 when the process started, you

know, young, vital, he was like a literary rock star of his time and so that tied in as using christmas carol as the basis and going through dickins imagining a christmas carol became something very excited and a way to tell the christmas story but that's different and so that was sort of well researched and i never even knew about and we incorporated a lot of those pieces into the movie. as les was saying, how do you make a story about a writer interesting and i -- since this was a canadian project, i was looking for a canadian writer and susan coin had done a tv

series, slings and arrows. a very kind of -- i don't know if people have seen that. really talented writer. magical realism to her work and we we wanted to figure out how to bring this all to life in a movie and make it entertaining and exciting. so we got the canadian government to pay for us to get trip to london, i said it was necessary to do the research and they agreed actually. we met with a lot of dickins experts and we met with simon who is in the movie and we hear stories that dickins use today walk the streets of london, 10-15 miles a day and see things and incorporate them in

material, that he couldn't start writing a book until he had the characters' names, those elements in the movie as well. just becoming all the different characters and talking to himself in the mirror and taking on all the different voices and becoming different characters. we try today figure out ways of bringing that to the screen. also to make independent films you need partners and this is about dickins and we were in canada and uk have coproduction agreements which allows you to work together and take advantage of each other's tax benefits. i was introduced to ian and adam john of the mob and they made an

officer we couldn't refuse and so we ended up partnering with them and we scattered locations and long conversation and they say over 9-year period this was going to be an event, christmas television movie and we had partners in the uk and, tnt was going to do it, evyn and we had such a great script, great idea and said this is too good not to make. paul came on board and everyone jumped in and four years later we got it made. [laughter] >> ian can take it from where you started? >> we started one conference call and then two conference

calls. we have to do this, this is great. we don't know these guys, they are in la and we are in london. very slowly we started working on the development together. i think what we liked about it was people in uk make stuff dramas about people like charles dickins, it wasn't going to be a stuffy period drama, dickins as rock star as the time when you could legitimately come from the u.s. to europe and go home again. not long before the period. if you came to the u.s., they couldn't go back because they didn't have the ships to do it. the beginnings of fame and all those kinds of touch points as well. dickins was the start at the modern celebrity and that felt

fresh and interesting and contemporary as well. we just looked at the material and dickins, and just really liked the idea of getting involved in that and we formed a partnership and here we are today to tell you all about it. >> no, it's been a remarkable partnership between -- we have 3 companies, mazer and the mob and robert's company and it's become a friendship and a family and we want to do more stuff together, clearly. but tell us how barrett got -- got snuckerred into doing this? [laughter] >> like a short version of a long version? i think i will do the short version. i always got smacked -- it's like how does any independent film ever get made. the things that fall into line for nine years. it's extraordinary and the

passion behind it and as directors we come at the end and take all the credit and the glory. [laughter] >> but you know, i came in very last minute and these guys have been working for ten years. i was on a speech in méxico. [laughter] >> in fact, i kept the cap, my lucky cap. i recommend you go there while it's still here and the water levels are low. i would literally having a margarita on the beach and these guys found out that we have a take ian who introduced but ian30 years ago told me how to use the camera. [laughter] >> it kind of goes back to, you know -- >> well back -- >> yeah. [laughter] >> victorian times. but -- but these guys said we

have a script and it's, you know, it's a very different take on christmas carol, it's not christmas carol, it's charles dickins meets christmas carol and we know that you're a big fan of christmas carol and i had been attach today a couple of versions already which had begun for other reasons and so -- so i said, okay, and i borrowed my son's ipad and downloaded les' look and they sent me the script and got transported to victorian christmas eve england and six months later i'm in dublin. >> what really happened was once we give barrett the script, he couldn't hear us, he was on this island, he had to hike halfway of a mountain and looking for the spot where the cell reception was good. so did you like it? did you like it? and he said, i'm in.

and honestly, 48 hours later, he was on a plane to vancouver to meet dan stevens who was already attached to play dickins and that had to work, it's all about chemistry and people feeling good about working with other people, so barrett just literally jumped on the plane and went to vancouver and dan is shooting tv series and you're squeezing a meeting with barrett and they met and it was just -- it just really clicked and so barrett was on director and i think what robert -- four days later, we were scouting in dublin. it was inane. it-- insane. >> it moved really quickly. >> when they go, they go. >> they go fast and play money. [laughter] >> maybe we can talk a little bit during q&a as well but one thing that i learned, all of the

money that you get to make a film, you really don't get it until you start making the film. so the question is, how do you then finance that period before you're making the film? [laughter] >> david is sitting in the first row, david, wave your hand. this is kind of like honukka. we are shooting in a few weeks. it was coming but it just wasn't there yet. 1843, they were all handmade. all the customs were handmade. you don't buy it off the rack. that's not the process. we needed money immediately and

mitch, we went to mitch and said, mitch, we need like a fairy god mother or father to help us through this. we gave him an amount of money that we could use, it'll get us two or three weeks of preproduction and then the money was going to come in. mitch went to david lee and david asked no questions, we worked on other projects, he wrote out a check. may i say the amount to everybody? >> no. >> it wasn't that much. it was going to last us two to three weeks. the oil, it's supposed to go for one day but then it goes for two, three, eight. so this money, not so much that david gave us which was supposed to be a little gap ended up getting us through eight weeks of preproduction and at the end of each week, these two brilliant producers would go, who do we not have to pay this

week? [laughter] >> that's how we stretched the money out. >> i was in dublin but i was getting emails trying to figure all this out, how are we doing all of this and realized when i got to the set that the actors actually and the director, you guys actually started the film not getting paid for that very first week, i think, it was, am i wrong about that, robert. >> no, just so you know, the money is our promise from a lot of different entities so we actually have the money promised from all the different parties but until everyone signs every contract, it doesn't come to us, so there's this huge promise amount of money but -- >> you have to tell that to an actor. >> we have this money we promised you, work with us, how

do you pay for food and all the different things, that was kind of the exercise and unfortunately in a lot of independent films everyone is in this crunch zone. >> i just want to say a lot of the independent films fall apart around that point. these guys did not let it fall apart. [applause] >> a remarkable job doing it. >> now that you know the process -- >> every night ian and i would go on the phone, we are still standing. that was our montra. it's the aaa of film making, one day at a time. >> tells a little bit more about the process. the it's very short, a couple of minutes, i thought we would show that and go to q&a, we have

about 10 to 12 minutes left. let's see that and i know you may have questions out there as well. so let's, if we can lower the lights and go to that, that'll be great. [inaudible] ♪ ♪

[inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[applause] >> they'll play in sunset and in the shops of sunset. those of you watching on c-span, you know, hit your local listings. probably offered more data come monday so you can go to the website. you'll be able to find out exactly where it's playing near you. so any questions, we would be happy to take some. here come a couple, i see. >> thank you, this question is for les.

i heard you all talking and seems so torture. [laughter] >> is this the kind of thing that you go through when you write. >> at least for you. >> hope and torture. [laughter] like dickins you get an idea that you think is full of promise and then the agony comes in always striving to do the best you can to make it manifest and worrying that what you're coming up with isn't quite getting it and as dickins, as dickins says, the first thing

was to get the name of the character and hope the characters would begin to tell the story which really does happen despite those who might poo-poo the notion. when i saw the first dailies where scrouge comes to life for dickins and wonderful interchange, how delightful to meet you, i'm sorry, i can't say the same, i knew they got this, i believe it's accurate representation of what we go through when we struggle to make something work that we think really is important to make work. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> it's a universal story so have you sold international rights yets?

>> yes. >> twenty-fourth of november, london, december, december 1st. >> italian version is great, scrouge. [laughter] >> it'll be everywhere. >> i know that the russians have put in -- [laughter] >> they are going to reserve it for next year because they can't dub it fast enough to get in. maybe we will be sitting in russia next year. >> i have seen the movie and i got a sneak preview and it was fabulous. it's even better than the preview. >> thank you. >> when i got a pass to see it as i said preview, i was so

excited like jumping up and down and calling my friends, it was great, so you guys really nailed it. so you're saying it took nine years from start to finish but you didn't tell us how long the actual filming took, i'm curious once you got the script? >> we did it in six weeks. [laughter] >> and run-up to the to shoot itself and run-up to christmas 2016 on either side of christmas 2016. >> and i say in the promotion of it, christmas in the title, we have about six weeks to get a really good box office out of it as well. everything is six weeks. >> it was wonderful, the music was wonderful and the story itself and the costume was fabulous, i really enjoyed it. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> i know that we are getting down to the time, i want to

thank the guys for being with us. [applause] >> and i also want to give special shot-out to my lovely partner paula who i couldn't do anything without. [applause] >> how are you able to do this? i have someone -- i have someone who is a real producer who's on my team. on a personal note, i want to give a shot-out to my mother who is right over there. [cheers and applause] [laughter] >> i also want to thank everybody from miami-dade college for being supportive of not only what we have done today but the book fair. you know in the remarkable week, we have another day ahead of us but we don't. you've got a marvelous program

coming right after ward with bob haas and charles simic. >> by the way, les will be signing books outside, we have beautiful posters that the rest of the group will be signing out in the signing area as well. the posters are free. feel free. [applause] [laughter] >> you want us to get together? [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> as you heard if you were watching the panel on the man who invented christmas, there's a movie associated with it, that comes out next week. this is book tv, we are in miami for the annual miami book fair, 20th year in a row that we have been live from the miami-dade campus in downtown miami.

joining us now is beverly daniel tatum, the former president of spellman college in atlanta and the author of this book. why -- why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria and other conversations about race. dr., tatum, we are talking to you about a book that was written 20 years ago, why is that? >> we are talking about a book that i wrote first 20 years ago and i i have revised and updated which was releasedleased in sep. this book in some ways is a new book because there's a lots of clang in the last 20 years. >> was it your idea to update it or the publishers, did they come to you? >> the publishers approached me about it but i was thinking about it because i wanted to write a book for young people of the 21st century. >> why are all black kids sitting together in the

cafeteria? >> that conversation is really a conversation about identity, identity development which unfolds in adolescent. one of the things we know is that racial group membership is an important part of identity particularly for young people who are targeted by racism in our society. sitting together can be a source of support, it can be a way of finding affirmation of identity, a way of providing a buffer against the racism of the society that's impacting you, but when i talk about this book, i always like to underscore the fact that it has a long title. really the book is about understanding of what racism is on our society, how it impacts all of us not just african american use but children of all backgrounds, people of all backgrounds and how that influence how we think about ourselves and other people and

ultimately what each of us can use to interrupt the cycle of racism. >> before we leave the cafeteria, anybody gone to public schools knows what we are talking about, did you sit at the black table? >> when i was growing up in massachusetts, i did not sit at the black table because there wasn't one, it was a predominantly white community and i was the only black girl in my class, so for that reason, there was no black table for me to sit at but when i went to college, i was very eager to sit at the black table to connect with other african americans students at that institution, so it was very much a part of my coming of age as a young adult. >> so you sat at the black table. >> i did. >> would white people approach the table. not usually and if you talk to white students today they will say that they don't, however, i think it's important to point out that while the black kids are sitting together in the

cafeteria the white children are also sitting together as are the latinos and as are the asians and that separation is part of an identity development process but it's also a reflection of how schools are structured because, for example, in racially mixed schools today and there aren't that many of them because there's still a lot of school segregation but as racial mixed schools today often in high school, there's tracking or what we call ability grouping where the ap, the advanced placement or honors classes are largely made up of white students, the other populated by black and latino students, which classes you're in will determine where you sit. >> dr. tatum, is it a good thing that all the black kids are sitting at the black table or -- >> when i entered a racially-mixed school and teacher or principal ask me the question, i often respond to a question and i am going put it

back in that way, there's nothing wrong with connecting with people with whom you feel a common bond, shared set of experiences, but the question we need to ask is, what are we doing during the school day in classrooms to give students a chance to learn how to connect across lines of difference, so it's not should they sit together or not, it's how do we both affirm the identities of those students in way that is have allowed them to have the bonding but also create structured opportunities in the school for kids to learn thousand connect across line of difference, recognizing that they're not growing up in the same neighborhood, we still have neighborhood segregation, often they are not in the same school because we still have school segregation but in 21st century if you're going to be an effective adult you need to know how to connect with people different from yours, that's true for kids of color and also true for white students. >> are schools still for the majority segregated? >> yes, they are and that is often surprising to people. here we are more than 60 years

after brown versus board of education, but for a variety of reasons that i write about in my book, we have had resegregation, school start today desegregate in 70's and 80's, over the last 20 years there's been a desegregation happening. >> why? >> the main reason has to do with supreme court decisions, supreme court decisions that have eliminated some of the ways we desegregate. so supreme court decisions that have removed court supervision over busing, supreme court decisions that have said you can't use race as a characteristic as you're considering school assignment. all of the that in k-12 public school space means that the strategies for bringing kids from one neighborhood to another are limited. at the end of the day, we will always have segregated schools as long as we continue to have segregated neighborhoods. if we want to desegregate our schools the best way to do is to

desegregate neighborhoods and that hasn't happened yet. >> as resident of atlanta, do you live in an integrated or desegregated neighborhood? >> i would say i do. i actually live in part of atlanta that is probably a majority white area but certainly it is a diverse area in is sense that i have white neighbors, i have black neighbors, i have asian neighbors, it is a diversed community. but unusual in that way. >> the subtitle of the book is other conversations about race. >> yes. >> are we -- we seem to be having multiple conversations, national conversations about race in this country. >> yes. >> are we doing it in the right way in your view? >> i think the real problem we have in terms of having conversations about race is that those conversations are not sustained. we tend to have them in an episodic way, there's something in the news, we are talking about it. often in a very heated way but the constructive dialogue that

leads to deepening understanding and beneficial relationships across lines of difference in ways that motivate action to dismantle the systems of racism in our society have yet to be sustained in the way i think we need them, one of the things i where about in the book is for people who want to have those conversations those sustained conversations, some examples on places where it's being done and how you might go about doing it. >> give us an example. >> one of the places is atlanta and i lift up an example in atlanta called the atlanta friendship initiative. initiative started by two men, one white and one black bringing people together across lines of difference and inviting people to connect with someone they wouldn't otherwise know and spend time get to go know them in way that is deepen their understanding of somebody else's experience. ideally when that happens those people are then motivate today take action in ways that will benefit those other people whoever those others are. >> isn't it in atlanta also a

woman started a meet group called meet a black person or something like this? i think that was in atlanta, i don't know if you're familiar with that. >> i'm not familiar with that one. there is another organization i recently learned about not based in atlanta but meaningful the bridge builder about how to bring people together across lines of difference to engage with each other in ways that will ultimately lead to antiracism action. >> in your experience, which group thinks most about race is it white people, black people, latinos? >> i say that whenever you are the target of something you're going to be much more aware of it than those who are not targeted by it. so anyone who is targeted by racism is going to be thinking about it because they have to think about it as part of their daily lived experience and figure out how to navigate barriers that racism provide. so, of course, people of color are more conscious of race in

the society because they are the targets of it just as women are more likely to be aware of sexism in our society than men or just as people who identify as lgbtq are going to be more aware of heterosexual. >> is there any irony on the fact that you're writing to get along on how the get along better with races? >> i don't think so. one of the things that i say about spellman in particular is that diversity comes in all forms. so just because you're having experience of diversity within the context of that community and there are something very empowering for young women of african decent to be able to

come to a school and be able to say, this place was built for me and i'm going to be a decenter of that educational experience but even as we are affirming them and empowering them to do whatever they choose to do, we are thinking about -- when i was president, we were thinking about how to make sure that the students were learn to go connect with people different from themselves which was one of the reasons why we had a global initiative and i know that my successor dr. campbell has continued that initiative, very excited to know that women are traveling the world understanding that they belong anywhere not just on that campus. >> what does the college president do? >> college presidents are the chief representatives of their institution. we might call -- some people use the phrase living logo. representative of the institution and certainly you want to advance the mission of the institution in all the ways that you can including fundraising, of course, but it's not just about asking people for money, it's also about making

sure that the story of your institution is being told and told well. >> is there anything you took out of the original version of why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? >> there are some things that have been changed for sure. this book is about 150 pages longer than the original and one of the chapters that had to be completely rewritten was the chapter of about affirmative action, for example. you know, the state of affirmative action 20 years ago very different than the affirmative action today and in the same way i really had to expand the sections to have book that deal with latino population, the asian american population, the native american population, the multiracial student population, these are population that is have grown dramatically over the last 20 years and i wanted to be sure that those children will see their experience represented as well. >> being the only black person in your high school, what was that experience like, how did it hurt you and how did it benefit you?

>> well, i will say growing up in a small new england town as i did, my family moved there in 1958, my father was the first african american professor at bridgewater state college and had privileged experience. everyone know me as dr. daniel's daughter and i was a very good student. the one thing that i will say that's benefited me was that i never had a sense that i could -- i was always very confident in my academic capacity because i was competing with white students and was up at the top of my class and so i knew that i could do anything that anybody else could do. in that sense it was a benefit but in a negative sense, the challenge for me growing up in that environment was a sense of social isolation at times and so when i was able to leave, went off to college i was very happy to join other black students at

the table when i got to wesley. >> former president of spellman college and the author of this book. why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? thank you for your time. >> thanks so much for having me. >> and book tv is live at the miami book fair on the campus of miami-dade college, in fact, and we've got a couple of more panels ahead. up next you will hear from pulitzer-prize winning poets, robert haas and charles simic. they will be next and live. after that, danticat, the art of dying as part of the art of series. after that kurt anderson and

mark bowden. .. ..

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

please be seated. good afternoon and welcome to the 34th annual book fair. it is an absolute pleasure to host this on your behalf. we are thrilled to have partners such as the night foundation. the bachelor foundation in the degroff foundation. please join me in thanking them for their support. we are also very fortunate to have some local friends and partners many of whom are here with us today. please give yourselves a round of applause. as is customary i ask that you please turn off your sound on your cell phone.

afterwards the authors will be signing books in the green signing area to the right of the elevator. i have the honor of introducing professor campbell who will introduce the speakers he is a professor of creative writing. he is one of them macarthur foundation grant. from the library of congress the academy of american pulitzer prize in the award to the literary journal. please join me in welcoming professor campbell to the stage. hello everyone.

all of the sponsoring agencies and people. ind host in introducer here for today's special reading and conversation. i'm just explain that to you. them i any book fair knows a good thing when it sees one. to close out the poetry program we are back for the third incarnation of a now a regular event. with two past poets. today, we will hear from two writers who have managed to create major bodies of poetic work while maintaining a steady output of critical writing. literary essays.

reflections on art, poetry in life. thinking is very important. for whom consciousness in all of its mysterious workings is often a primary suspect. is not to say that they reside in a purely intellectual realm. to the contrary, he has been described as a lyrical virtuoso. to the famous onion soup. while charles cynic with one of his essays. they talk about food. in the world. it is food for the body and nourishment for the mind.

hopefully they would be largely fueled by your questions. i will introduce robert half. a native of the san francisco bay area. the national book critics. the time in materials that remain the most recent. justly recognized for the brilliant work. this year he has published a little book on form.

that reflects the wrist on a restarted sheet -- astonishing name. that will turn ordinary readers into students a poetry. in the recurrent national landscape as well as the attraction. at the same time it wrestles with the burden into privileges of the european past. the literature in history and modes of thought from adam and eve it is one of the rare writers that the two great traditions east and west seem mutually engaged and equally appreciated ethically balance. where the poem or essay it is always lyrical and invigorating. if there is a wild flower that

he does not know the name of it probably is not worth noticing. if there is a poetic form or idea it must rank somewhere below the limerick. please welcome robert half. thank you campbell is so much and thank you for being here. it's such a thrilling event. to see that many people out especially the little kids. if we had been writing for so

long it's hard to know what to read anymore. what i usually do is read fairly recent things. i had been writing down the tone of voice. so the first one. they had been doing in the population survey which is pretty sketchy work. up on the cumberland plateau. late afternoon in tennessee. my companions are telling wildlife ecologist versions of war stories the only way he is

saying you can tell a male from a female. it is by digital inspection. his wife has just left him. he rammed his hand into the fold of the biggest goddamn gator you have ever seen we have her pinned and tied it pretty good but she was trashing seriously. we were all sweating seriously and the owner was not inconsiderable. and they were up to their forearm. just a minute. and he pulls his hands out in his wedding ring is gone. he just stares at his hand and we just sit there staring at him because we have held that gator as long as we were inclined to do. but of course we also knew the decision was up to him.

that is just listening and reporting on the world. it requires audience participation. i will tell you the title and then we have to say. praise to the brass and at .-ellipsis and the tea. in the soft palate and the hard palate in the vibration of the vocal cord. peter piper picked a pack of sea shells by the sea shore. you might as well say it.

she sells rubber baby buggy bumpers. it is early march late afternoon there is one tiny mouth. just outside my window. the loudest in the smallest of all of the spring birds. three sweet notes perfectly spaced and then sometimes a fourth. not difficult to say but it requires a small increment of effort. the bare branches of the sycamore. as peer -- pure pleasure.

i find it hard sometimes to say that the people in california in august stand on tiptoe to pick it that the deer can't reach. that the deer can't reach. pick right huckleberry's. the round lease. they were glowing just gold right now. maybe it is just plain. they have taught chimps over hundred words. and the words cannot be formed to make new concepts. but kat doesn't seem quite right.

what if it's not just the range of things that they want to do. i want to say right huckleberry. it goes from branch to branch because i want too. praise to the breath in the teeth. and the lips. and to the tongue into the animal to those who first said that. here is something a little bit darker and a little longer one of the things if i could fight it quickly okay. one of the things i have come to understand and listening to

the poetry readings is a difference between that. you can look ahead and see how long they are. with the poem you don't know. it is almost three pages long. and i will raise my hand at the end of each page so you know where you are. especially with this. you will wonder how long is he going to go on. it is called dancing. the radio clicks on the poor swollen america already up already. and those which commentators are debating whether or not a man who killed 50 people in five minutes or a terrorist or

if they are mentally ill. because if killing large number of people is a sign of sickness you might want to begin with fire our early ancestors drawn to the warmth of it. the great booming flashes of it from the sky in the tree. ipods breath. or grass fires. so that to fashion some camp fire burning wood they must of felt like feeding on the crumbs of the gods of power. in the eagle that feasted on his liver. around a campfire.

the tribe of malicious gatherers. they burned blue. and flared green. so simple that children could do it. i gave up a white glow. some say arabic. it was in china 2000 years ago that fireworks were invented. fire in a confined space. they knew already about the power of fire and water. one hundred bc. in alexandria. they produced the steam powered engine. the earliest depiction of a compact dump -- gun power weapon. the silk banner.

the first one. the english used units and a siege gun. in 1503. the first battle won by the one by the power of rifles. they cut down the battle in southern italy. explosion of blood in smoke. mostly farm boys. how did guns come to north america. headline in the new york times. divers and discovered the santa maria. one of the lumbar to canons was stolen. in cortez took mexico. the 1679 constructed the seven

cannon bark. on the first entering of the continent. the sky darkened by the terror of the birds. the chorus. as the echo of the first astounding explosion. the crew blinking as the wind of their wings springfield arsenal. rock island arsenal. they were shot with the rim of fire. breach loading. it was an age of tinkerers. in 1860.

about 95,000. 110,000. contained, exploded. and they were throwing a sand into the fire. the machine-gun in 1914. the death in combat all site. 1914. 8,402,000. someone was counting. it must have been they could since things whistling into the air. it must have shrieked with delight. and the young winston churchill invented the new policy.

it led to the pact of terrorizing civilians the total casualties in that were worldwide. they were throwing fans into the fire. he have his guts eaten by an eagle. on a rock. they were wondering if he was a terrorist or mentally ill. the casualties does the call to estimate. in the firebombing of tokyo. in a single night. the other industrial countries could not get there fast enough. contained burned, what scramble was for the rocket. the tens of thousands.

they were wondering if the terrorist was crazy. if he was a terrorist maybe he was just unhappy. the other challenge afterwards was how to construct a mercy -- a machine gun. light weight complex the weapon of european imperialism to which a few month trained. it became up portable weapon. the equalizer. the insurgents fought off the greatest army in the world. so the afghans fell off the soviet army. in dancing. they were toting that. around is a bullet. an estimated 500 million

firearms on the earth. they were dancing in orlando in a club. the relation of the total casualties. it exploded metal into the bodies of those young men. it was a beautifully made instrument. you can buy anywhere. they were dancing in the club. the spring night. they are still rising in wave after wave. with the vast interior of the new land.

the commentator is same they require a very heavy hand. dancing they threw powder in the fire. they were dancing. [applause]. the author of more than 20 rounds of poetry. with the others. dozens of other accolades. and immigrated to chicago when

he was 16 his childhood experience during and after world war ii it contributed to the hunting of the quasi- surreal totality. for all of the darkness the vision remains comic not because he believes the world to be composed laughter is the only appropriate response to the suffering and brutality that surrounds us. the tragedy is merely under developed comedy. in a 50 year career they have created their own mysterious poetic universe. i'm suddenly familiar and yet not quite hours. attended landscape of wind and snow music and philosophy at the same time full of wise

cracking butchers and old ladies sweeping up dust. he possesses it seems an inexhaustible poetic opportunity. it was always surprising whether he was wondering whether they like to look at the stars or asking questions about the infinite such as the sound of the surf reminded of the cell. does it ever sit over a glass of wine and philosophy. more food for thought. please welcome them. [applause]. greetings.

i will read a poem from the previous book. scribbled in the dark. they related a good number of very short poems let me just begin. it was a poem about myself king of the insomniacs a

student of stealing and making bets. an old soul plane the accordion. a fly escape from the have of a man -- madman taking it on the wall. the blacksmith our grudging assistant up to renown and in visible master illusionist assuming the person that they present themselves to be. [applause].

i do come from in one part of my family 200 years of village priest. that's why i don't believe in god i guess. here is a short little paul at the vacancy sign there was a small room in the back with a bed and chair into woman who locked the door.

leading there there alone was a ray of sunlight you could imagine talking to the retirement dropped in for the visit and bowling quiet as a i got ready to leave. in the week. monday comes around with a new tattoo in here it's tuesday with the nightmare on the leash. tapping on a windowpane thursday sipping bad a coffee served by a pretty great waitress. loss and confusion of sad and happy faces and flashing like

a pinball machine in the morgue. they were ahead of the crucified christ hanging sideways in the bathroom mirror. [applause]. this is also a short one. it's called signs of the time for a mindful of this quiet it is a cassondra in the sight of the boarded up public library. the rows of books beyond its

windows are open for years the sickly dog on the steps in the manned slumped next to him his mouth working mutely and able to recall his lines. at the end of some tragic farce. [indiscernible] a very early memory i guess i was about five years old i would imagine that would be

1943. the movie my childhood is an old silent movie when mother let me by the hand into a dark theater with the film have already started the dream which we happen to drop in with a young woman writing a letter and a bird sitting quietly in her cage no one is paying any attention to it was a city i forgot to say we

trudged our way home along the treacherous streets. [applause]. when i lived on a farm i wrote love letters to chickens pecking in the yard when i would sit in the outhouse mending his web over my head. let's my wife took up at the

mailman the neighbors were leaving too. as a ran off to the moving truck and even the scarecrow i once tried to agree so would have to listen to me. this is a short one. all the same. the woman i love as a saint deserves having people falling on her knees before her in the street asking for her blessing and said, here she is on the floor tears run down ran down

her face. some of the short ones are so short i have no idea how long they would take to read. as a harvard bookstore in cambridge when i read a very short poem next. on some lady shouted out 30 seconds. i think her. i will read this poem.

this is called the fleet. a little fleet loves to see two lovers undress and jump into bed they would be done without lovemaking quickly. so he can have them all to their cell. quitting their snoring only to scratch themselves. two more and then i am done. the one that was mentioned. the infinite. the yawns keeps yelling.

is sleepy. does it miss us. does the song of the surf reminded of itself does it ever sit over a glass of wine. does it peek into mirrors at night. does it have a suitcase full of souvenirs stashed away somewhere. it is whispering sweet nothings in that year. does it enter empty churches to lay a single light a single candle on the altar. does it see us as a couple of fireflies. with the graveyard.

does it find it quick to reach. and finally a poem called night owls. the addicts of introspection all of them quartered between body and soul. making burglar stools. to pick the lock of the mystery. and scribblers against the dissembling gods. mad dogs a mystic love on your way to the pound. the fellow sufferers and wretches like me the pretty

ladies too. each nail to her own car -- cross. let's all get some shut eye if we can. thank you. it and technology services. i guess we will have a couple of large questions interesting to me. there is a microphone right there which if in a few minutes people have questions the notion is salina well open

floor to questions. one question i have given that i do think it is one of the notable ones. we've been doing this event for three years now. this year if there is no matching like with like. went to poets who are famously brilliant thinkers, critics and analysts. you basically carried on that. i wondered in one sense how you decide like bob if you're thinking about guns and the social issues if you're thinking about the war how do you decide whether that thought in the idea that your thinking is can flow into the form of a poem. is there a simple message in the or any wisdom there are

you. enough for me to say. the general. i basically know how to do one thing. and i just had always been astonished and the different kinds and different formal enterprises. and how you know say you had guns on your mind. or an essay or another kind a piece of writing.

mostly i only write like that if i get an assignment. and sometimes it's pretty much beginning for the scrap of musical language. if i have to have a good idea it does me absolutely no good. the poems come from i don't know where. you need words to write that. i have a lot of mention of words. this book is about torture. with torture in our times. i don't plan in my head.

i want to write a poem. with a topic. like everybody else. these things emerge with endless thinking. you start writing a poem about your grandfather where you remember him sitting in his chair. and you're right. they just add some other things. the poem does not work. in my case a few years. so than they realize.

i have to take the grandfather out. they have emerged and to keep grandfather grandpa, sorry. and that what is left is a poem cameron wrote a book of poems that has it every year for the 20th century. how did you to turn the question back on you you will know you will have to do something with 1927 i don't know you are right. each year was solving the puzzle anew. and some of the poems are less

rich as they might be. i like it better when i can to say when the poem starts to get that happen. i have to do certain things. that is a burden. i agree in the musicality and the language that it shows up in your head. it's almost like working through that. you don't know what the poem is based on the first idea. in the first you have to be discarded. i'm always ready to lie and make something up.

this is how it happens. but who cares. something else has to enjoy that. but still, the question always arises that's where you constantly feel that way of aggression. i have read them. the very brink. about the library and so forth. i didn't start that was in

mind when i started. it crept out on me. we do live in monstrous times. it's the closest thing we have two an institutional boost. do you think there is anything especially important for poetry to be doing these days. i've always thought in mind with the most interesting poems.

during the civil war. when most of them are about the fact that her sister-in-law hurt her feelings. she is still a great one. obsessed by the war. no one can say so much greater point. what he can do. i spent years working with my neighbor who lived some of the h century. he said it is one of the curses for a poet is to live in an interesting time. he said what a poet really needs is a little bit of a quiet and a rabbit to feed.

but i also remember he was enraged or what was described as genocide. in the time and they rask -- write about it. was kind of a blurt. we would meet on monday morning. he would have a first draft of the poem. he said to me after a few minutes you don't tell me whether you think this poem is any good. i said something like it's not any good. but sometimes you will be less ashamed by writing a bad poem than being silent. i say that to myself too.

that was a powerful poem. are you going to set something up on the issue. they will talk to somebody. a few relatives that i had left. i listen to a lot of music. so i have that. it plays a role in his mythical moment.

i had one more big question. it also in your in your poetic thinking. they look globally for influences and figures and that. that is whether it was cross the pacific. never looking very broadly. do you think the mira of walt building. the globalization and looking culturally on the border of language.

everybody at the universities for example. and humanities it was the modern european literature. there is there's nothing unusual about that. as we know all of that change is along the subject. they are just stopping to teach foreign language in high school. and even colleges ito had to

you don't have to know another language. we know absolutely nothing about that. about the south americans and so forth if you go to south america they know so much more about that. with american poetry. it is embarrassing. connects to the same room. they had been diminished down to almost nothing in the culture. the language itself is maybe where you would start -- start that. for the languages. in the act of translation in literature can speak even more beyond that.

because of the feedback i'm not sure i'm getting the question. would i have a monitor behind us. i was guessing the question for charlie's answer. for me i think when we grew up reading the same stuff there was the same generation of critics, writers and thinkers. who set the table for us. people would say what was the poetry world like when you're growing up and i would say there was no such thing as a poetry world when i was growing up. it has been institutionalized. i creative writing programs. but when i innocently applied to graduate school i

discovered in my little college that i went to that they have the quarterlies. i was reading that. and delmore schwartz was writing essays and stories. it all felt like part of one world. there is not the special poetry corner over there. with all of the generation of european writers you can tell they felt the same way. people they have also felt he was very clear about the fact that they were more important than writers. that it was was the class of people that read books and looked at art and philosophy in his case and they were having a great conversation so when i started teaching it was very clear to me that that was what i was trying to do and it

still is. if they're not getting what we think were getting that's on us. it is obviously the range of things they wanted to change the world. the poets do different things and it's up to us to take what we loved. and try to blackout another generation with it. would you still point the young people. do you want to see what people are doing right now. i know we had questions in the audience. we went to open up to you guys. do you believe that rap is poetry.

i think it's poetry. it is a wrap poetry. i'm just point to repeat going to repeat what people are saying. good rap is poetry. so i think those two yeses. with the whole subject of the great lyric writers in english and the renaissance a couple of those promises. his poems are really wonderful and survived. it's a slightly different art. as a cousin in the same artform maybe.

they've a difference in going because the music can supply the feeling and the can play around in it. in poems we have to do both. is there another question. a number of years ago has gone through a bad patch. they started writing poetry. but then i get happy and i did not want to write poetry anymore. so my question to you is sometimes you feel like a song writer songwriter who writes poetry. .. ..

>> >> people were insisting with experience so finally jim walsh.

sodium said what you think of this whole thing? so whatever it was over there and did montana those that make those sacred objects

they were so good and he did this for years until he died. [laughter] he just understood when you love something. >> maybe we could circle back to the issue. >> next question.

>> for those that are translators does that help them to find their voice? one year ago if that happens to either of you?. >> so with those highly experienced translators does that ever influence your own development?. >>. >> but translation is the close as possible teaching

literature 50 years but when you translate it is more than any other kind of reading it can just see how things are made. and though certain metaphors are made. and that was also influenced

so if you can they get a lot of different traditions and they kept telling everybody. because that is how you learn about poetry. >> which languages?. >>. >> serbian and other it eastern european languages?. >> the language that i spoke in a country that does not exist was a dead the language. now u.s. serbia, of croatia

there all separate languages but the difference is the argument spoken in massachusetts or ohio or alabama washington state were all separate languages. but for a very simple reason i wanted to be a painter. but i wanted somebody to be able to read it.

oh i did read a beautiful poem but it was in serbian you can understand that the levy read it to you. maybe you can feel it. [laughter] in said was to make a decision what kind of decision? [laughter] anything. >> the yen translates those images. >> i don't know any other language well enough to even try to write a poem and a high-school actually we were assigned a poem i guess they

did turn in that assignment. >> i am curious of the institution of poet laureate it is a two-part question for robert bass and charles comment is there any particular highlight from the time that you were? and a similar question when you become poet laureate is there something you may want to accomplish?. >> we have the imaginative and the fact based question first into being in the institution.

>> you cannot equate hopper with the frame of the capital when you do that. is the ways that and know how you feel about it but i have regret except in the position of poet laureate because it did end up being very time consuming but also it was the experience you would never get to do it you get asked to do things. i spent one week in the dead of winter in chicago in a school run by nuns for kids that were kicked out of every other school. and when i went to

washington from california oh my god what you wear your the poet laureate? i bought the expensive black overcoat because that is the uniform of d.c. and shortly after at the school there is a woman in her 20s. i thought she was nodding off. may be drugs i'm not sure and i said i cannot tell you are thinking. she said to me, i was looking at your code to think your world and my world. that was an interesting moment. so to put yourself in excruciating circumstances

having to publicly represent poetry so that was interesting. >> it was incredibly time-consuming but it is only three years. but this is a privately endowed position. so they can hardly afford to put you up and then going back and forth so it was interesting because he beat

a lot of people in washington and with those washington types with those public servants at 3:00 in the morning say charlie you don't get it the system is complete the broken. we are fucked. [laughter] and they were right. then it is like a guy walking if there is a young women or to young women they

are huffing and puffing but it is regrettable they have no idea what state. so you are kind of lost. then you see a face like that. >> that would be stupid. [laughter]

so there is so much. and then with all the interviews and with that supplement and somebody says so and then to interview an first of all, ended is

interesting. and those are interesting questions you're asking for: so the idea that the windows anything about poetry is the abuse of that idea. that is not true. >> one more. >> hello. as a river bed a poem you were unable to write because the subject or form or

theme?. >> yes. lots. >> i have several different levels and it makes me very nervous revising on that electronic screen but i have a large pile of starts or bits or finished but not interesting even if and when the pile of things mostly i

don't think i could sit down to a blank piece of paper to say no right. but normally i can look through the scraps of paper. >> the same here. >> so if you pay attention maybe it is the spark to succeed the case you will fail 10 times for every ploy networks or maybe higher and then they turn out to be a good thing. >> there are three or four rules to say if i waited for inspiration i would have no work to do, which is the taking dictation from the

angels. i also heard the short story writer that there is no rule of writing in kim provide nothing. in you to stay with it and the third one has escapes me. [laughter] there are three important rules and i can only remember to. [laughter] >> thanks for the question. [applause] >> they will sign books over your. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] coming up in 15 minutes we will have authors talking about their books the decillion live from miami joining us now on the set at the center of the festival is author and national book award finalist, edwidge danticat your most recent book is the art of death.

what is the art to of the series?. >> in the little bits of them are and a couple years ago after my mom passed away i was an avid reader of the series and that is how the book came about. >> you spend several years writing about that?. >> so when i moved here there was a lot of separation in my life both of my parents have died.

in to get the diagnosis is a bigger wanted to explore in writing and that is part of the book. >> was this cathartic?. >> extremely. i realized that people struggle lot but i got a lot of books a lot of poetry collections and then to revisit those that i had one

of the next things that you had was looking for word was a way for me to move forward. >> host: neece if you were afraid of death in the art of death. >> guest: yes. the eric the rutted to two different kinds of people. in they would be speaking for three hours. and others would be like co. [laughter] because it means an end your people that we love but i learned especially the writers like christopher hichens writing about their own death in even with my

own parents they want to tell us to live. no regrets at the end. >> host: to the living find that message?. >> we -- put that in the back of our mind but christopher hichens writes in his book with mortality the difference between living and dying but the constant awareness you have the expiration date.

but for the dying people every single day they live. >> host: edwidge danticat, you compare your mother and christopher hichens. >> there were different situations in my head is my mother was extremely religious she believed she was going to have been but what they had in common was to maintain a sense of humor and my mom also made jokes and the one thing that she

said with both of them thought it was safe to ask why me and why not a child? sorry women with babies? but the way that they could have connected. >> host: you open with a relatively funny story of your mother. >> initially my mom and my dad wanted to be a doctor. and then to get into the medical profession somehow. [laughter] the web my books were published in thank you were with me they were very

proud. my mom wanted me to give my book to every single doctor. and that she wasn't just a body. and he said i am a body but my mother wanted people to know more than that. so this was very surprising for me. that it was also one of the guests that she valued my work. >> host: from the art of death more and more are writing your own obituaries.

>> guest: yes. surprisingly with social media before people past the way we have to get into the attic to find their letters but now it is on facebook then took a few people who have died in the facebook page states that on their birth the blue bag -- of a birthday people write to them. now it is metaphorical. but there were these ways to create this narrative about ourselves.

but then we can construct with social media how we remember after week on. >> to sum up what is the art of death? as somebody in their rates but in the end the tuesday that as the part of life. the living the best life that we can. >> host: edwidge danticat bader their cultural differences with the mysticism of death. >> guest: absolutely.

because we lived in a culture. to outsource. ended may o lifetime. but when i went to bed we went to having all of that. so every culture has its own visualizing. and then what we believe happened. >> one of my favorite parts is your mother under her breath during - - room

during. >> in saying until death do us part. i said that was beautiful shoes and i wish is telling him that. [laughter] so that was that way. >> host: how often?. >> as often as they will have me.

it is about the cycle of life and death so i'd love to be in "the new yorker." silica somebody wants to access your work?. >> edwidge danticat.com they can get a sense of where to find me or what ever doing. >> host: thanks for being with us on booktv now we will reach turn to the campus of miami-dade this is the final panel of the day you will hear from author of the disease lamp about the turning point in the of vietnam war. booktv of c-span2.

[inaudible conversations] >> please be seated. good afternoon. and this is the last one.

it has ben an extraordinary week and a half. this extraordinary event would not be possible without sponsors like the bachelor foundation. and we always celebrate our heroes that give to the fair. give yourselves a round of applause. [applause] we hope we can count on you next year. please turn off your cellphone. i am for the honors college and worked here at miami dade we're delighted to provide you to this committee. [applause]

>> this promises to be special with the international press institute please join me to welcome john. >> banks for coming to a the last event we have had an amazing glass-steagall and. and as the author of 12 books like blackhawk down at "the philadelphia inquirer" 20 years now writes for vanity fair and the atlantic the writer in residence at university of delaware it in 1968 of the tet offensive at

the turning point of the of war in vietnam. [applause] and kurt andersen is the best selling author and contributors to "vanity fair" and "the new york times" his book reader of studio 360 the peabody award winner and in "fantasyland" the liquid history of america to show what is happening in our country today in the fake news moment we are living through is the ultimate expression of our national character. [applause]

>> the of the floor is yours. >> thanks for coming i am honored to close out the book festival i will talk for a couple of minutes then kirch will come up to tell you about his book then we will have a conversation if you have questions lined up and fire. my book tells a story of the worst battle of the vietnam war careful to call it a the american war in vietnam because it is told through the eyes of both the americans and vietnamese. one of the real the vintages for me is researching and writing the book is the country has opened to the

reporters and journalists so that was one of the first opportunities to do this kind of work to sell the story from poolsides obviously you learn very quickly there are two sides to every story i cannot think of the subject that would be more true than a battle so i was thrilled to have the opportunity to do this reporting in vietnam. i hired a fellow who is a military officer retired military man. he understood the of bureaucracy and the of veterans' organizations to find former vietnamese and viet cong fighters that i could interview and also in

the american war but because of the military background could put the vietnamese and veterans at ease talking to me also working with ken burns with the pbs series. the first trip that i took anti-introduced me to 20 or 39 of which i understood i don't speak vietnamese soil and ask the question and get 20 minutes to respond then give me a 302nd summary. [laughter] so when i got home i hired a young woman who was a grad student so planes taking the she transcribed the

interview so i had a chance to read so i went back the following year and then to ask that follow-up questions but the problem is that in the interim someone google me to decide i was an important american writer. so i got a nice note from the ministry saying because the was significant journalist or writer to have a deputy of minister so i sat down to draft a note back things for working with him but could contact before

hand and said this is not an offer that you can refuse. so the deputy information minister because when we left hanoi to drive up to the first interview we had to pick up that information chief and then further on for the province and by the time we arrived at the village we had a caribbean high enough to intimidate any veterans. i informed him that i was very grateful that the interest showed in my work as the toast was raised to

the united states. but i am going home tomorrow if you don't stop. so it was easier for me to interview the american veterans but nowadays most units involved have web sites, rosters, before what i had a long robust of interviewees that i could ever possibly have done. so i find it difficult woodworking on a project like is to disengage at a certain point and then realized if you are interviewing the 125th person so the story of the battle is told from the ground up.

academic historians tend to work in the opposite direction from the top down and they are interested in strategy and that importance with the various political trend and i am interested in those also but i am more of a journalist than a historian. so we build this month-long battle in vietnam's that were caught up in the fighting. is a portrait not just of a battle but the battle itself. this is a particularly terrible example that lasted for more than a month and 10,000 killed and 1800

casualty's and by far were the civilians. with the most beautiful cities in vietnam composed primarily in the north of a giant fortress called a the citadel. it looks like it should belong and they gave of throws with the stonewall, only nine gates in and out over the motives of those civilians inside were literally trapped. those forces who had taken the city did so with the expectation that they would rise up in support of the

revolution and that did not happen. but civilians who were trying to get out did not endear themselves to those communist troops and to round up those people that were affiliated with the saigon regime. see you were not rising up so they either rand from place to place looking for a safe haven, or they dug bunkers and the whole family would hide under ground where they were safe as long as the artillery shell did the land of the house.

by the end of the battle 80% of the dwellings in the city were destroyed and 80 percent of the people were homeless. but the battle itself was probably the most significant shock as part of the tet offensive united states were heavily engaged fighting in vietnam for three years and general westmoreland the commander was assuring president johnson in the american people that the enemy was on the of run that they could come down somewhat small and reach the far reaches of the country. with every major city and town and with the ancient capital the entire city was

taken this cave is the nervous shock as site -- eager mr. rock that i write about the debate was no longer have to win but how do we get out? so i think this battle was pivotal and in some ways was a watershed event as a high water mark for trust and respect in the military and that ted offensive was the first in this series of blows with the people that were in charge. westmoreland always refuse to a knowledge the city was

taken and insisted there was nothing significant going on. but there were 20 times that many. and as a consequence of that many young americans were killed and. one of the shocking things that i discovered is that small units were repeatedly ordered to attack with that intrenched position. >> and to have so many characters you have to apologize it is the battle

that affects so many people in so many different places of time that it becomes a challenge to tell all those stories and if you see the portraits on magazine covers it looks like a portrait with thousands of the actual photographs each of those is a pixel said you step back it looks like a face and that is how i envision the book to relate the story of the terrible battle through the experiences of all these people caught up in it. >>.

>> is a pleasure to be here. marks book focuses 1968 as it happens. more than they realize. it is truly a 500 year history of america. talking about the vietnam war and what prompted the profound m looking from the various points of view on campus and christianity and the counterculture and uh

peace to "the new yorker" have a the presidency more and more has become a subset of entertainment and what that meant. and a piece where the york magazine with creationism and these were separate pieces. as i also made my living as a book writer. and then that's moment with that extraordinary quotation from the mastermind carl rove and he said people in

the reality based economy believe it is under discernable reality. that is that how the world works and he was joking but dangerously that is not how the world works anymore. as senator moynihan said everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions but not their own facts. that was no longer a joke. so anyway i began thinking about the book which i began realizing the '60s was a crucible for what i was

thinking about. and the dna was a defining part of the national character for centuries that it achieved this critical mass in the '60s to put us into a typical 51 years later. so reading of bit of the first chapter with the basic theory of the case then the last chapter. i don't consider all religion or alternative belief systems or conspiracy theories or all impossible dreams misguided. each of us is on the spectrum somewhere between the poles of rational and irrational and we all have superstitions and we cannot

prove but what is problematic is going overboard. letting the subjective entirely overwhelm the objective. and it was just as true. the original embodiment of the idea of intellectual freedom free to believe anything she wishes is out of control. the old drug individualism was attached to epic dreams and fantasies in to build a custom made utopia. with that imagination and will. and they have swamped that sober empirical part. little by little for centuries and americans give

of themselves and then to believe the indians a full exploration with small and large and most of this to realize how far reaching the new normal has become. more than the other billions in the rich world we believe in the supernatural and the miraculous. reports of the recent trips to the several thousand year old story from several thousand years ago. at the turn of the millennium but it was no longer risky as tens of millions fantasize that real-estate would only increase in value. we believe the government

and co-conspirators hold information from us like vaccination or extraterrestrials were the dangers of vaccines. we stockpiled guns because you fantasize about the pioneer past or in anticipation of imaginary shootouts. and then to pretend we are soldiers and then to have those worlds do the same. that was all before we were familiar with the term post factual or post truth and alternative facts before we elected a president with astonishingly open mind what is true or false of the nature of reality but with my reckoning more reality based maybe one-third of us

believe was some uncertainty is the main cause only one-third are sure of liberal and factual account why are we like this? the short answer is because we are americans that means we can believe anything we want to. that is superior to anyone else once day it becomes an incredible the word mainstream is a pejorative shorthand for oppression by the leads with that

institution that what -- that once kept us for the media and academia and corporate america and professional association with respectable opinion enables and encourage every species of fantasy was the most prestigious universities promotes miracle cures, the tv show. mermaids and monsters and angels as real. once cnn anchor talks about the malaysian airline receives supernatural event. one of the two bullet wound -- big political parties with the new world order. white women felt the lack never tended to be the case of the naacp official said

it isn't the cost of that i can put on or take off the would not say i am african-american but i would say i am black. bill gates foundation but they have folded into the new center. and as particular fantasies they are encouraged by a cascade about of control powers if those people believe that then certainly we can believe this with that intellectual and psychological are conducive to the fallacy and make-believe there are many slippery slopes during the

last several decades they were turned into a colossal interconnected with no easy exit. is the only a matter of falsehood but people assembling a make-believe life style as well. with conspiracy theories and tennessee football and virtual reality make everyday existence more exciting and dramatic. . . . . life with the dull bits cut out.

with a cooler story younger than we actually are. if we are old. over time the patches of unreality take up more and more space in our line. eventually the whole lawn becomes astroturf. we start registering the differences. in the old days if you want to shop and becoming instantly rich you have to travel to las vegas. in order to spend time walking around. you have a go to disneyland or disney world. cosmetic surgery was rare. we didn't reenact military battles with props with days on end. we had fabricated the mongrel of melodrama. of course having fake boobs were playing league of legends

does it make any individual or that viruses cause autism. but we are freer than ever to custom make reality. to believe whatever or to pretend to be whoever we wish which makes all the lines between actual and fictional blur more easily. it becomes flexible. there is a functioning synergy. the large and small ones the toxic and individually entertaining once. the ones we know to be fiction and the ones we sort of believe in the religious and political and scientific once we are convinced they are not fantasies at all. america was created by true believers in passionate dreamers as well as by hucksters.

from a salem hunting riches. to speaking in tongues. from hollywood to scientology. from walt disney to billy graham to ronald reagan. in todd donald trump. in other words, epic individualism with extreme religion makes show business with everything else. and all of that deep and simmer for a few centuries. the anything goes in the internet age the result is the america we inhabit today. where reality and fantasy are weirdly and dangerously blurred and co- mingle. here is close the end of the book. after i've taken the reader through 400 years of america including the reformation. during the first 15 years the gop turned into the fantasy party with the reality -based

wing. a far right counterculture the millions of followers as their extremist predecessors have succeeded in doing to evangelicalism in the lobby three decades earlier. this book have been underway for two or three years and when when the presidential campaign began. i have started paying close attention to donald trump. in many other articles about him. exposing and satirizing his life, they called us names.

it was amazing to us. to turn with the on-screen cartoon. and reply to us. he came on just as we were creating a magazine to chronicle america's rich and famous in powerful jerks and i guess that trump became the center of all as i was in the middle of writing a history. a pure fantasy land being. if he have not run for president i and might not had mentioned him in this book at all. here he is a stupendous exhibit a. to describe him as practically to summarize this book. his right as american to believe or pretend that fictions our facts.

to feel the truth. his case of what i call kids are russ syndrome is acute. and he is first and last a creature of our industrial contact. so did his biographer in 2005. first the internet. a minute did so for candidate trump. feeding him pseudo news on his phone and letting him feed at those untruths directly to followers of social media. he is the poster boy for the downside of our digital world. forget the press he advised people at rallies just read the internet they had ties to

ices he was asked if he would be regretting treating that. all i know is what's on the internet. but he now thinks it's a double edge sword. it allows them to find and circulate convenient and exciting untruths. he read on the internet. that has elite enemies conspire to spread lies to hurt him. just before the election was suppressing the bad news about hillary clinton. how about that. they had been a recurring motif in this history of fantasy land. now of muslims and liberals.

he launched the political career. fear and loathing of foreigners and nonwhites. in 2011 trump became chief spokesperson for the fantasy that barack obama was brock obama was born in kenya a french idea that he brought into the mainstream. he was done and not he was donald trump. so that could be regularly provided. people who believe in true things i can pass light detector test. trump's version of unreality is a patchwork of knowing falsehoods and sis. believing fantasies which is more troubling than if you were just a liar. the insistence that he did not grab or kiss any of the dozen women who in 2016 said he have unbidden nothing ever happened

it didn't exist. that was all fantasy land he said. i'm close to certain but he probably really believes that the murder way in our country is the highest it has been in 47 years. the total and dangerous falsehood that he told leaders of the national sheriffs association earlier this year. whatever he believes or doesn't he makes untrue assertions than any u.s. leader in recorded history. as he wouldn't head. in the 80s or 90s when he first talked about running for president because now the actual truth is just one option the consensus reality it americans do feel entitled to their own facts when the public approval rating declined trump simply refused to believe it. any negative polls the president tweeted at don one morning from our lago are fake news.

his brazenness is not punished even when he is denying from the point of view political psychology by simply denying what i affirm active nothing happened. you are left to having to decide what i really meant. and all the sensitivity to the value of truth itself. it's easier for everyone to come more like him. did he really think he lost the popular vote.

i'm a very instinctual person. my instinct turned out to be right. conspiracy of government officials bold they were closer to sincere belief. the people who speak on trump's behalf fantasy was asserted by someone else. or they will as a he has been graded on the car. they mustn't always be taken literally. the white house asked the reporter to please remember all the many things that he says that our true according to the new york times the

baseless certainty that he was bugged in some way a sense of persecution bordering on faith. i'm indeed the most honored defense has been to cash them as matters of religion. that is what the press secretary did with the three to 5 million illegal voters. he reminded the reporters that trump has believed that for a while and does believe that and it's been a long-standing belief that he has maintained and its belief that he has maintained for a while. a quarter of americans subscribe to that belief themselves. and in trumps of you that overrides any requirement for facts do you think that talking about millions of

illegal voters is dangerous to this country without presenting evidence the anchor of abc ask him. no, he replied not at all. many people feel the same way that i do. this is a final paragraph of the book. when you come across words. the current situation was not inevitable because he never are. more now is any particular future. one strange act on the ongoing epic.

nations and societies have survived from far more terrible swerves the good news in other words we can help. thank you. in an effort to link my book with yours. maybe we can see the battle of way. what happens in the real world when an alternative reality leads us into situations that would probably be best to avoid. talk about the best and the

brightest in all the super rationalist maniacs. and how that can become its own version of unreality. if you only look at body counts that are strictly rational. a disciple of the school and quantified management. in a ton of equipment and ammunition moving down the trail. they kept track of the points. given in the 1960s like there was this religious and quasi- religious and spiritual

awakening on so many fronts i gave rationality a bad name that it was this a debacle in vietnam that it became the symbol. that doesn't work. reality does have a way of asserting itself. on the view of my book. carl was a marine company captain in vietnam. and he told the story of his friend who was a pollutant leader. that can't be true because they don't have any trust. sir, i am where i am and where i am icy goddamn trucks.

with time for just one question. see mech. >> this is a lot of pressure. the meaning of life. when i hear you describe what comes to my mind. the united states civil war which they trained troops for the battle endeavor and actually fought. i was wondering about the parallel and making this all up and putting us into a big hole that we actually never a doubt out of. i'm wondering what was his motivation based on your research that led him to live.

we've all met people some of us and pay person and others on television with such a firm theory of the battlefield or the marketplace or whatever that reality doesn't even make a dent. i think wes marlin was someone like that. he invested a lot of his ego invested a lot of his authority in his theory of what was happening in vietnam any on and he on all of the data he needed to back it up. that rigidity was so evident that when his own filled -- field commanders were radioing back he just chose not to believe it. the young officers were accused of committing or cowardice in many cases after having lost half of their men in efforts to do what they were ordered to do. it really is astonishing. i don't know if he was deliberately lying but he was

certainly lying to himself and what i will add to that and the experience with the american experience of being lied to by generals and people all the way up about vietnam especially in the course by watergate as vietnam was ending. the ferocious miss trust. with the government and institutions. in my view it went too far finally. as correct as the attraction us to as us to get to a place where any set of facts that are inconvenient to one can be the dying. thank you.

sorry we have debt cut it so short. the authors will be in the green signing area to the right of the elevator. [indiscernible]