and cspan now is available at the apple store and google play a download it for free today, cspan alchemy front row seat with washington anytime, anywhere. >> there are a lot of places to get good information but only at cspan do you get it for a history from the source no matter where you're from, where you stand of the issues, cspan is america's network and unfiltered, and if it happens here, or here or anywhere it happens, america is watching on c-span power by cable to hook another perspective on the state of the u.s. media, i guess angela, president and ceo of media matters for america and reminds the folks with the

mission is media matters what you how to find it was media watch organization largely focused on in addressing the problem of conservative information's mother is active distribution of it the enabling by journalists and media identify and respond to it a point out what is especially concerted campaigns a real coverage and studies and we do a lot of work with social media platforms angelo carusone because the informational and see if changing or the things we see is the rise of disinformation like you saidof this on steroids platforms - we don't want to work not just in identifying the challenge of the problem but really zeroing in some of the solutions that are either prevented or solve it. so that's just the product issue and we are about 60000 hours media and radio here, real-time archive and analyze these hours and these are pretty significant pieces of research to back up the claims that we make that's

what we do, we just to try to turn slightly improve the conversation. >> how long of you been with media matters tonight since 2010, right after i graduated law school and i was there as part of the campaign and in that case it was about getting back to either stop being so destructive out or to get better pretty is one of the other in sort of the objectives so hiking there basically to continue that work predicts us are starting to continue to do campaign advocacy work for a few years and then my way up and conservative information gaps in coverage, let's talk about the media story ofia the week so far and the drt opinion from the supreme court in the abortion case and what information of you be looking out what is gaps in the coverage. >> most of this is news media for the last decade we been looking at this for a while if you look this probably speaking public reproductive health and

apportionment dominated by the right wing and so where's the mainstream media wilderness giving any attention in a significant way and we allowed for the conversation be dominated and settled the texas law when when into effect in his last fall for example, is only three mentions of it onnt the cable news over the first week enacted and fitting on conservative on top radio but it was not discussed in the alarm bell was not really wrong for most people that think about this civic engagement for humans we come they never really appreciated what was happening you before then, that going a lot of the right wing misinformation that we were hearing so one of the things that really catalyze a lot of the slaves momentum for these pushes was describing it new restrictions as heartbeat bills for example there's no fetal heartbeat that was made up, by then a choice extremist means that better messaging but one of the challenges is that none of

the cyclic that right away so now that would've could've should've but a lot of the coverage we are seeing right now is a consequence of the gap inye the coverage that event lasting few years which was potentially for people of a deep agenda and were trying to create a misimpression of this misinformation is all right now right wing medias focused on the elite is something that would think about it other some weird when you realize we are a pro-choice country one of the things that they constantly say is whether it the most extreme talk radio host is a costly point out that this is not - call data just means going back to the states and they are almost signing away from celebrating the thing you would expect because it relies most people are actually disturbed by the applications of this. so they mostly distracted focus on the week because often there's a lot of accusations have it being some sort of a liberal clerk and that's where

the focusing most of it on totally baseless of course and really no discussion about the implications of itself is the focus on the destruction here. >> in the right wing media, how would say doesn't really matter right, can be attributed discussion but to think it really matters here is the outcome of the case and that's cwhat significant when a final finally card and antenna fired when they have this, there is something newsworthy within this moment, the real focus should be the substance of the leak it and it is a a little weird when thee putting leaks this whatis journalism is, then you publish it this with the journalists do is an important part of our discussion and if you go in time and you look at major leagues that have created significant events whom is pretty rare for the initial conversation to be focused on substance of like the leaker itself is always curiosity of course but as we

are to be in the dominant narrative and not to discuss the actual substance of the case itself and that is weird. >> you noted what resources we, the focus and the media the process and the place whether the substance of community example. >> i think one of the things he put out his impressive all, will this help the election and that's with the rest news media because a problem and i expect the conservative and ideologicaa media to focus on the leaker because they have an agenda not adhering to the practices but when hear the actual bill what it is and their focus is to select the political side of this, that is a part of it but everything can't be seen through the horse race politics because as a so much bigger than that it is not goingno to begin and endn november and this is a part of it but it's not the focus right now the focus is on the people and i think that if they were to

tell the story from the individuals that are going to be affected are already been affected by these laws across the country people prosecuted put in jail sometimes accidental contrary to the law this is really crazy example so far, not been lifted up and that is a problem with journalism right now, that is a consequence, narrowing to discussion and what they actually do is enable misinformation monopoly good information out there enable so i would say the emphasis on with a covered and how it affected impresses a part in the second part of it is in the core if you look at the discussion itself even at the conversation that is a problem with it because the focus is on one of democrats going to do about this and that's a question in the flipside of this and you never hear is what about republicans who have to think about this or acting contrary to what is popular in their state and there is this time again, the debt ceiling and we see here, when they do now the frame of

politics the almost concede thah republicans are not responsible or should not be governing it in an effort in acknowledgment of some way that we can't really expect them to do anything with a challenge because of course they have this agenda and i do think there's a problem even with the narrow public. >> we give the phoneov number, your strength conversation, then angelo carusone media matters for america and as you (202)748-8000 the public74 is (202)748-8001 and a zero soon as folks are calling it, one story jack shaver and political right there, or theon process here in with the leaker story might be important to this larger issue would erase as we come the court is long occupied a sacred and mythic place in the national consciousness and conducted work and reveal and depends upon the press and the mystery of the temple and the politicodi

exclusive to do the nation the magic very dusted taken overdue look at the court decision making process and it was almost but not warranted because if we had a viable callers that would've sorted out it the legalities printed we shunted to the supreme court the job of legislating with the workshop should be and views from that angle he writes the scoop is left with an intrusion in supreme court signified domain urand investigation into a piece of evolvingve legislation. >> is a worded the folks simultaneously accept parts of epithet also think it's wildly off market i would point out number one, that he has a tendency to be concerned that sort of this landscape that's how he engages in so i do expect to be a part of it and i agreed no problem with them doing this i'm good with that and even though that's what we are supposed to do is genesis get information out just put out the raw and validated go through process it is a profession and should be respected and treated

as such more just a buddy with an opinion on mine, it matters this process no doubt the politico with her process before they just threw that out there as they felt they had something matters we can trust this will be created the story that we did it on the other hand, that's a little romantic it and familiar withr the course possible and one, this is not an evolving piece of legislation kicked back to congress this was federal law withis the course do in some cas like this made a determination about ae constitutional right d massive overhaul landmark decision here and this has been chipping away at the constitutional protection for quite some time the right house and it was pretended them aspirated that it is a federal legislative issue is been boggei down and simply inaccurate and that is a problem is that it tries to make it something about democrats versus republicans here and it's not just decide

year ago with real federal law of the land for decades and it is brought implications for all of us and how far states can go from being chipped away and this a reversal when is considered to beed a right to knucklehead. >> know that is as. >> setting aside that draft opinion this been confirmed by the course in your view on leaked tapes and less guesswork talking about hidden camera investigation organizations being very much involved and the role of those kinds ofth investigations and tapes like the new yorkfr times when their your reporting on kevin mccarthy and his discussion post generally six, with top house republican officials and the role that plays in journalism right now. >> but i would point out is it we should have a conversation about these things when it comes

to withholding and information verbal because frankly that is if you like journalism withholdingg information and in order to get it out and its relative relevant that doesn't have implications and during watergate they did it hold it for havoc on the publishers uses newsworthy timely and they are timely but we've seen them come out with reports there timely and some of them there new and some are sitting on it has on okay and that's inconsistent but speaking, this is part of journalism as long as there is a process so validate the information releasingin information and think we should trust the newsrooms and critical of them and when they stdemonstrated that's with you o build the public trust and what i point out apartness media matters is designed to harshly born out of this and with the right wing has done and i think

what journalism news media has failed to do, decades now wondering result is there was a coordinated orchestrated effort beginning in early 90s, to actually weapon eyes the trust individuals have so they created these pellets them aspirated like newsrooms that use that benefits that people have interest in the newsrooms and said publishing things that w ty knew because it had political benefit or sublease groups that pop up now that they do these operations and realized emily and benedict, lives are versions of whatever they had created .. ..

who makes the rules? we say that about professions. do they say that about plumbers? the electricians? imagine if we did this but look, i am a critic that is my job my job is to be a watchdog are plenty of things to criticize journalists for, even things i agree with them sometimes i will still criticize them if they miss a standard. but there is a profession is a profession it should be a profession is not just people popping off. i think the challenge we have this is that challenges journalists have had to is because they have cared about the trusts that they have, one of the things that took place as a result of this concerted assault on journalism even of the evidence is not back that up in their coverage is that often times privileged misinformation to inoculate themselves against the critiques that they somehow are biased or in the tanker.

up until very recently, a policy that if the took an op-ed that contained climate science information it must include an opt dead on skepticism. but they do it to inoculate themselves against the idea that somehow they are in the tank for the liberal climate change address. that is not engaging in using professional stands i do think newsrooms for their editors are not just during grammar checks are saying that line, that's not an opinion it's a statement of fact was a substantiation question requires the evidence that soy storiesha takes times o get out the gripe about their editors are asking hard questions take out things that might be well on twitter or social media be especially headlining tour of the goods back it up. >> sarah from ashburn, virginia good morning. >> caller: good morning, born and raised in washington d.c. so washington leaks like a sieve thank god. if it wasn't for a leak somewhere would be with

watergate? with the bay of pigs? with the mining of the harbor in nicaragua? a lot of these things need to come out. and thank god we have a free and open press. it is in the constitution. democrats, republicans deal with it, thank you. >> anything you want to add? >> i agree they leak. newsrooms got leaks. a lot of times they say we are not publishing us on the public interest. or it's not substantiated enough. a leak as a leak not all private information is necessarily in the public interest rates to think that is what newsrooms do they make those assessments. you are right who gets to decide quest wrecked that's why they are competing outlets they have a baseline set of standards and verification the ones that are able to strike the balance between trust and good reporting will tend to get better scoops

which will get them more attention. as long as they adhere to some standards and don't keep stepping on a rake and losing credibility and trust, and theory their reputations will grow that is what makes news outlets competitive with each other. i think we adhere to the standards i agree we solve part of this. i think it's because there's a little bit of a filter of professionals that are actually trying to balance out, since thing worth the risk of us actually publishing the information? >> doug good morning. >> hi. i had a couple of questions. first question is about that said in a pro-choice country individuals have their own opinions about abortion, individuals make that choice.

i don't understand the comment we are a pro-choice country. i think there are millions of people in this country who would say abortion is wrong, it is murder and do d not feel we are pro-choice countries. curious what the basis is for saying we are a pro-choice country? >> sure that isio interesting. number one i think this goes to show why it matters the news media covers these things are little more reflective of reality. we are america or jeff a pro-choice contribute even people who do not like abortion do not want government telling them they can and cannot do things that is a part of what makes us uniquely american. so people wearing masks was such a challenge where they did not like the idea that people were interfering with them. somethings are ridiculous but at its core the something deeply, deeply unsettling for most americans even there uneasy about abortion personally and they feel i wouldn't have one, i

don't like the idea of the states to get so deep in their into this private decisions. in so want is a philosophical thing you know america. number two every bit of research and data backs this up i don't like horse race polls and make it out of one pole that 800 people. other than having modest gun reform some basic safety checks, access tor reproductive healths like the second most universally accepted think more than 70% of the country thanks roe v wade should stay in place the privacy protections that it affords are a good thing. now you are right, millions of americans oppose abortion that's why maybe they should never have it. by and large, overwhelmingly americans a pro-choice country that's my backup for. >> washington post abc news poll over 1000 adults back on april 24 and 28 the question was, if you think the supreme

court should uphold roe v wade or overturn? uphold 54% overturn 18% 18 with no opinion one of those data points are referring to. >> if you asked the question in a different way show that slightly different results. but at its core what people want is the privacy protection that roe v wade had. number two they deafly do not want the government involving themselves that deeply and intimately in their personal lives. but it is a part americans even people don't like abortions they don't like amore's government. it is true there are millions of people deeply opposed to it for a variety of reasons. this is not mandating it it's about protections that's my evidence to back it up and think of the media told that story more did not treat it like it was a balanced equation, it would not seem as shocking into that caller is very real feelings and opinions about a progress north carolina, caught a republican good p morning. >> yes good morning. i just tuned in so i am thinking

about i have spent a lot of time thinking about media. and i understand that currently, most americans no longer trust the media. the media had the public trust. and the federal communications commission stated that any time a journalist, or a reporter, skewed the news that it was not a bad act against the public that it was a heinous act against the public. i agree with this. and sir, i find that as you are talking today, that you are skewing your opinion into the news. you know, americans are independent thinkers. we are able to decide about an

issue without it being republican, democrat, independent or anything else. and i think that is why you find that mostt americans right now, do not trust the media because really, in essence the skewing of the news to support an opinion is actually an attempt to control the public opinion. and i don't think you're going to be able to do that in america. >> will take your points come before you jump in on that another data point from pure research, the percentage of u.s. adults who say they have a lot of sump trust and information comes from national news organizations from 2016 -- 2021 dipping by five percentage points among democrats, among republicans dipping by 35 percentage points in that time. >> i think that's the problem not to make an argument that one is better than the other it is a reflection of a political strategy member donald trump again his administration and ran

hisin campaign by the clearing d news media are the envy the people's a very concerted attach on the idea of journalism you diminish a accountability. there is a reason for that you need some reliable good information of any kind of functioning society especially democracy. so if you are someone who is maybe t reflectively lying or ty to distort things you have to go after the checks. that data, that drop alone demonstrates and reinforces it was a concerted political strategy we should name them. i think to the colors point if you really care about skewing it's clear that is a skewing. it was a skewing not enter journalism itself but in the consequence of a political strategy. broadly speaking i would say national trends are a problem. most people continuously not trusting news media as a whole. people still trust her local media lot. there is a really big difference

video from generic news media started drill down therere is a trust relationship their progress among local news organization same questions percentage of americans of that have a lot or some trust and information that comes from local news back in 201685% of democrat so they have a lot or some, 84% in 2021. among republicans 79% back in 2016 so they have a lot of sump trust, it was down to 66%, much less or drop that among a national news organizations for. >> that is critical to see colors point to you cannot control americans and still trust a narrative agenda way you can do is erode trust universally in larger parts in sectors with either doctors, or scientist, or in journalist. i o think one of things you have to ask yourself is why do we keep attacking people why do we attack individuals specific political perspective. you have fossil fuel industry

allows you to perpetuate a lot of policies that are bad you tech scientists because i ideologically do what they are proposing. is the opportunity for political gain for you tech you when you don't to be held accountable in this case we criticizerg news media were not saying the dream for these nefarious purposes, what we say is here's what you did, here's what you said, that is what a watchdog dose. the goal is not to tear the institution down for the goal is to hold up a mirror to say hey you messed up. you can fix it in your future coverage and sometimes it takes an enormous amount of effort to do it. but first you have to acknowledge some of the bias can be internalized in the gaps or problems with professional standards newsrooms have to adapt to changing landscape. i do think all the problems news media had a specially cabled media which is distinct from papers but they found the same feeding frenzy is political reporters and we talked about this with the row in the

abortion stuff, have really taken of the dominant lens through which we think about information being distributed. not everything can be through by in a partisan political lens. we saw that play out a lot with trump. he presents an irresistible temptation for newsrooms especially for cable news not just take debate but to become combatants in the arena. i do think they did not do themselves by any favors but not by their reporting, but trying to capitalize on the attention that trump could provide by engaging. yes it is great fodder and great attention to get into this with donald trump online and have him more you. it's actually not helpful if it undermines people's trust and why you're doing and saying the things you're saying as a reporter. i do think they give themselves a disservice not consequence not in the coverage of self at the tone and tenor some the individual journalists who are shifting so much of the coverage through political lens. >> florida, georgia republican

goodod morning. >> good morning, how are you? >> doing well. >> caller: angela i'm so glad you are on. i admire your organization so. it is the king of liars.f you do very well. f got one question for you, would you be able, would you be willing to go on and talked of tucker carlson? i'm sure his people are watching this. they would immediately contact you to get on that show, would you be willing to do that? >> i wouldn't do it by dilettante box would ever have is on his pretaped with the point that up that's an important indication of what the intentions are. >> why do you think that? >> they would not want to get the reality reflected back to them that's one part of it. i think there is a real fear they are. at the hold of fox accountable if i was fox i understand where they are scared because we are able to work on number two no i wouldn't i'm not scared he can

come to me. i probably still wouldn't tucker is not just to misinform her, "new york times" reports confirm this. tucker carlson is an active enabler of white supremacy. the guy is mainly to neglect your time at the tuesday store and tucker carlson believe the headline the air to trump? oxidant and enormous amount of research to quantify how deeply connected he is to white supremacist. people may be bristling but groups that break the term that's what they believe. his connections with the quantified. how much is reflecting on his programming and its relationship to her. i wouldn't do it i do not want to help fox i do not want to pretend that's a legitimate conversation. enough tucker wants to denounce and change his tune i might consider. i think no one should go on fox was a serious person fox news is a partisan political operation by the cell most destructive

force in the country. not anyone with consideration for their at altered corporate leaders, think anyone who goes on fox news at this point is enabling true disinformation and extremism. >> zero up advertiser pressure campaigns in today's media landscape. >> i love them and hate them. there is a perception if you don't like something, you automatically get the burner thing down to the ground and that is what they' have done. because they provide a source of power in a world where we can s much feel at the legislative level, the policy level, one thing advertiser campaigns into we are capitol society most of our news media is commercially driven the advertisers are the fuel, the lifeblood of a lot of

this. if you don't like something you go after the advertiser. i don't agree with with that said advertisers play a role. so it makes a mistake or says something controversial he should fight about it, that set the goal, the features a bug if the goal is to lie,e to misinform, if the goal is to not just a semi- controversial but be controversial to get that attention to harming marginalized people that is a business model is 70 make a mistake. i think would dial down the reaction a little bit we try to do that we're pretty sick stranded. on the other hand your business model is to lie or to attack a new will then commercialize on the advertisers have a role to play. they are making the investment in these millions of dollars to buy ads on these spaces they're getting pitched, they know what they're doing. you have to have a product that sells. ifne the product is hate and lis

it's totally reasonable for people to wait a minute, i buy your brand i like your brand or trying to market to me beer doing things to hurt me? i don't know about that i want to change minnick advertiser campaigns have a role in the business model something uniquely deceptive. the only way to get them to change to rethink what works is to actually go over their head to the thing that's funding it. most newsrooms who care about their reputations, most will care if you give them evidence. they may not validate all of your feelings with us thatt weuy made a mistake and they will stop doing it. the business model isut destructive think is extremely reasonable and important to make sure the advertisers are engaged. because not doing anything makes it more likely to happen but i promise everybody there's not advertiser campaign to push off the air in 20,102,011 alex jones would've been on fox news because glenn >> was highly profitable for the network.

and what he was doing essentially was taking slivers of what alex jones was doing on the radio and echoing on fox was in getting it not just more attention but attention that was in commercialize there's a perverse incentive there. then i'm in some line in the sand there would've been a lot more going. that would've been worse for all of us a would've accelerated that movie. >> ohio, gina democrat good morning. >> caller: yes. maybe you were angelo can help me out here for your last guest talk to people walking into the capitol through open doors no police protection i would like to know where i would like to go to see videos of that? i watch all the news channels. could you tell me where i could go to research and see that? thank you. >> i mean, not trained to personalizing the last group they are purely ideological so

unfortunate for the caller is really interested in finding that it won't it because it doesn't exist as a right wing myth being pushed by t a larger echo chamber pretty could hear descriptions of c the video echd on talk radio to tens of millions of people. you can hear it at nights, but know you will not see a video because it wasn't just a casual stroll like they're doing a tour. you find citizens smashing indoors or you can find videos of cops getting overrun and then characterizing them as casually walking in. no, you will not find videos of the description the previous guest describe because they do not exist. >> detroit michigan anthony good morning. >> caller: good morning. everyone is a critic probably one of the lowest forms of anything. your gas could be something of this new dhs board is right up his alley.

any journalist who does not speak out to the freedom and release is a disgrace to their own profession. number one journalist in the worldou right now. he has a stellar record so he went so a couple things there. one, taking raw information distributing to the public without going through to protec- individuals that could be affected by it is not newsworthy, that's not journalism. i did not want it to deep in the weeds or that's a problem. the problem is the acquisition of leaks back in the day really deeply aligned with russia and other partisan player. i do it to draw that distinction paired going through information that is critical and filtering at sea are not providing and harmingg things, that is

journalism. taking documents and throwing it up there because you have an agenda is not c journalism. it could be important sometimes unjustifiable but that is not what journalism is. he can't be a leaker and a journalist at the time. whistleblowers are brave they do something that you understand the consequences for we hold them up and say maybe we shouldn't hold that person accountable at the dead is worth it. that's white whistleblowers are brave. i don't to muddy the waters but a little bit of oversimplification i don't tota distort from the reality that leaking is important, whistleblowers are brave, and i think lately has demonstrated perhaps was not a hearing to any standardss. >> jackson, louisiana betty republican good morning. >> caller: yes good morning.

thank you for having me on. i would like to ask your guests about what is going on with the hunter biden thing? they media absently hid that. they said it was all thisst information. if you are talk about reporters reporting, you could have investigated that. the fact that the president's son is selling paintings for $500,000, he has no expertise it's fun for more than a monet. there is no investigation about who is paying for that and where are theygo paying for? are they paying for that painting are they paying for influence ofat the president of the united states? except to point betty brassard this'll take the second or two to things happening at the same timert. that is what journalism does. i hope there's not wrongdoing seems like there is that is what journalism is they should should

also's questions also reasonable things aspirate there is no reasonable suspicion behind her and think to back it up but it is what journals do i think that would be a story worth investigating. on the hunter biden story itself this is what comes wille circle. even people are deep advocates for the narrative around hunter biden, really seem to miss the genesis. for people who are not super in the right wing medium people talk about that what they are referring to is the fact that in october of 2020 in your post articleis was published that twitter decided you cannot distribute the links to on twitter. consistent with their policies of leakedin information that is not verified. the right wing went nuts about is evidence of a conspiracy. now, let's just go back in time you're the genesis and the reason why is that your post article did not meet any minimum editorial standard. do not provide any information did not verify anything they

were reporting. not credible individuals on their face. the wall street journal had reviewed the same substance and declined it. most people think the wall street journal is reliable and consistent newsroom. as a case to be made there and editorial side not so much. the same loan to fox news, there's no trouble lying, it die pass on the story. so it happen? ended up at the post the way you treat gossipy pulling in and out of hotels, right? that is where it ran. the issue there is did not provide any editorial guide to the posted self is not credible to stand on its own authority. is not suppressed though it

stopped engaging onto the only thing twitter did the right seee the greatest evidence of a conspiracy and a hoax would say that one story as it existed, were not going to allow that to be distributed are oblique policy but i would point out there were claims in there conveniently but had been dropped. it was not like the story itself the original story has not held water all the way through. parts of it have been there was a laptop that has not been cloned and half dozen times that are circulating. there's never been a verification of the event of the material that is in there. when i got the boy who cried wolf, we do that eventually when your arch on the truth you won't hear that is why should lie. the near post is not a credible outlet. if they really care that should've been more concerned about the reputation. >> you mention twitter country of thoughts of the long most

buying. >> not just because another example of a billionaire coming in and am borrowing a lot of money in order to buy something that he wants for ideological reasons even if you don't use twitter the reality is twitter has a massive influence there's a lot of journalists influential people, decision-makers, corporate leaders are active the other part has fluent on other social media platforms. it's smaller when things twitter has and i think we can agree on some of this is that they have been a little bit of a vanguard in addressing people can fight about individual substance on posts where they should be taken down. but they have done are simply significant things for example in 2010 twitter was the first company that came out and saidd well, deep space a totally synthetic video absolutely made up that looks real at masquerade of being real. let thosegoing to

exist in our platform and let it clearly identify as a synthetic is too harmful. note social media platform had a policy against that but once i put that in place all the other outlets started to take action. a lot of the misinformation that we saw in 2020 would have been so much worst of it always a deep fake videos proliferating around the internet as well but that was a prevention of district information. my point is to highlight twitter has been a little bit of a vanguard when it comes to addressing threats. privacy, they played an important role that has had an effect on users on other platforms even if they never touch it. one thing elon musk is going to do is not that verb he's basically gonna make a free-for-all. a free-for-all actually makes it harder to engage in free speech the biggest, loudest, scariest voices of a disproportionate influence over the conversation on twitter i like twitter a lot of people will use it is funded not so much fun if the meanest

most horrible people are published on twitter and there's nothing stopping them from destroying a campaign. talk to mitch i couldn't dab has been waiting to get in for a while a democrat goodd morning. >> hi. for some dismisses on the grow quick. fox news is like the national enquirer for me. i have a question for angelo the guy who came on before, adam, angelo, can he tell me about the unification church and the funding for aim? does he know? >> at shadowy that's the nature of nonprofits. i think toy some extent that is typically okay.

that is what the rules are. it is a little bit shadowy. in most cases the money matters in their christmasy ideologist fronts or they did not do a loop a lot of media research they have an agenda to make some points, throw some bombs out there- and shift the narrative a little bit i would much rather fix the facts pray. >> you talk by holding up the mirror what about this form we try to conduct here on this program? >> c-span is a little bit different. i think that is important part of it. if i were to start with my the one thing is your treating democrats republicans and independents. that is not point to last much longer but that is a partisan lens there are plenty of republicans that are deeply concerned about the transfer of political power of the concentration of wealth.

corporate power and i think were the challenges because we have these partisan boxes we feel we have to carry water even for the stuff we may agree on. over time i do think that compartmentalization won't work. the second thing is i get it. we are not two sides of the same coin they are credit, we are watchdog. privacy both claim to be the same thing just look at the citations were very credible source we have it in perspective we are credible. even i will point out even conservatives that disagree with us always acknowledge that at least our data is correct. they never say you sure got that wrong they say oh he said that but who cares. they never say that weth lied. they never said we made something of a room we do a study of the study is wrong they just say it doesn't have the significance we think it does find that's a difference of opinions. but wee are different where resource operation that is my

second critique there is this idea we have to treat all things the same and i imagine that if i participated by myself it would not have been a cat wouldn't seemed like it is bias but sometimes aren't two sides we don't have analog i was to be dead i w think that be okay who comes the closest? >> probably some rogue people on twitter they're trying to make a strong argument or people who are maybe doing a newsletter now. it is pretty rare certain no one has the repository have or the facts but that is part of the challenge, right? there are plenty of that are purely partisan we have an ideology but we are not partisan which is i think a little bit of the challenge of retreating it that way that's a lens in which we think about things. broadly speaking i would say sometimes there aren't two sides in the "washington journal" still pretends there is which is not to attack you, that's not

just individual get sometimes it's about the topic. i got your form you have to have that. i think it's great you have a wide range of because that's important but sometimes is okay to make a call progress appreciate the conversation presents the of media matters for america media matters.org and on twitter@mm fa appreciate conversation. thank you. ♪ see spanish or unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> think this is just a community center? no it's way more than that. two great wi-fi enabled the students from low-income families get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers.