interview program with

relevant guests is interviewing top nonfiction authors about their latest work . >> what's the instrumental purpose of this book, what do

you hope to accomplish and who do you hope to reach? >> i would like to hope that the book will accomplish a couple of things. first of all i know realistically it's going to be read by more conservatives and people who are independent or liberal and i hope thosepeople get 2 things out of it . i first of all hope they get arguments they can use in debates that may or may not be having around history but i'm hopeful that in the future we will return to an era or we can have a more robust public discourse and dialogue and the second thing which is unessential is i hope it's entertaining. i hope people get or enjoy learning some of these things i've beenthinking about and researching over the last couple of years . >> you posit the news is broken and i will sort of semi-summarized but the three main ways that one is from within the newsroom by agenda

driven journalists who sometimes don't really admit that their agenda driven. once from the boardroom through kind of corporate corruptions and deals and then also from without by people like you at breitbart who are gleefully throwing rocks at the structure. talk about that last bit for those who might not be fully aware of what breitbart does and some sort of the role of the independent right of center media system. >> i would say probably the book covers more of the former, maybe more than the latter but it is fun to go through our history because i do think we largely have been misconstrued and i don't think that we've been given a fair shake in the public and i lay that out and it's peppered throughout the book. the book is mostly memoir starting with the first employee but i think a lot of the nontraumatic been

dishonest and people have heard some of them will often for example like we're all right, we're associated with anti-semitism but we happento be owned by jews . we have to use on staff, there's an editor in chief was still our senior editor is an orthodox jew and the company was founded in israel and is pretty much 100 percent or the idea for the company was that it was started in israel so it's one of those things where it's repeated over and over again. and i'm pointing that out i think is worthwhile. but the and answered your question i do think that so long as there's free speech in america and as long as there's a first amendment and is not entirely controlled by silicon valley and are going to be different voices. there's going to be voices that are able to penetrate into the national dialogue without having the institutional backing of a corporation. at the level of corporate media that we have right now it's just not.

and i would be shocked if anyone really disagreed with that if they thought about it for long enough. but i do think with the rise of podcasting and there's so many alternative media sources that have driven over the past decade, it's left an indelible mark on the establishment media's credibility and i think it's pretty much undeniable. >> is your their attention there between the way that the news is broken in a good way. it sounds like that's great. they've broken the mold. but in the way it's also bad. is there a natural tension between the brokenness of the news and what we think about it? >> is a tragic story in a way because we love our media to be heroes. i know popular culture is largely controlled by people in the same political worldview as the people who control our unique media but

we want to portray people as heroes. we want to portray them as throwing their bodies on the gears and sparking the machinations of ill will within our society that is not what is right now. right now the establishment media is about twitter lies and it's about conformity to people in there. and it's about serving gigantic corporations which are multinational, they have vested interests abroad, they're not focused on american sexual isin or what it means to be american at all and i find it to be heartbreaking . the fact that the news has been broken by some of these upstarts, i know you're a part of this publication, it is the good thing in a way that this is possible in america but i think by and large it wouldn't be great if we could look at corporate media and entrusts them at least to a certain degree. i think those corporate outlets haveeroded so much in

recent years . i think it's not a great thing that's happening. >> you write in your first chapter a victory lap over the way that you first i think kind of co-opted and turned around i hillary clinton phrase and a journalistic as talisman phrase we heard a lot in november about 2016 which is fake news and a little while later the president of the united states was using it to. talk about that timeline. >> this is straight out of the breitbart playbook and i consider this one of my babies and i'm glad you asked about it. i never thought i would get any public credit but i'm going to take a little bit now . when we started to use the term fake news which we had seen floating around in left-wing kind of obama circles in media, pro-obama circles we were starting to see this concept circling. and i said i know what

they're going to do here. i know what's going to happen . this is going to be something that's used two brand people the way we're they used two brand people like the aforementioned alt-right. things people don't know who are the leaders of these movements and what these words mean or how powerful they are but it's branded to tarnish someone with that and it's hard to wash that half of you. and i knew hillary clinton was going to do that is typically with breitbart. not that breitbart at the news but we were affected so we've always been the focus here over the last decade in terms of the left test driving their attacks on conservative media because we are the biggest of the upstart conservative media outlets. probably only foxes bigger. there again a corporate outlet so it's a slightly different model. when i saw hillary doing this , it was going to be a celebration for harry reid.

i think it was in retirement celebration for harry reid and she used the term over and over again. i said i see what she's doing and i didn't know for sure but i thought maybe she was thinking about breitbart so i did something we've done a number of times in the past. we're just going to repurpose it take the branding the news and put it on every full story that comes out of the establishment. whether it's cnn or the new york times and we're going to start using the news co-opt the expression. then donald trump got into it with jim costa during a press conference a month or two later and just write off the cuff he says you are fake news to jim acosta and thought it was the most hilarious thing ever and it became trucks phrase and he ran with it. it was i believe it began with breitbart co-opting the term do something that

benefits the right versus something that was going to be used to attack us. >> you claimed people were using it to tarnish groups of people. is that not what you are doing right here with the media ? are you not tarnishing them in a kind of collective way? >> sure. i there's two components to that question. the first is based on it. if they started trying to brand us as the news and they go way out of their way to try to diminish breitbart's influence and the conservative media's influence in general and they're constantly forgoing any attention, there's never anything positive. there against us. what we do is we use the term but you have to earn it were not following some liberal opinion the news because we don't agree withthe opinion . we wait till there's an actual also. when the term is being used by a clinton was used in

these broad strokes strokes. she would actually cite the falsehoods that were being put out. i do think there's not an equivalent thing. i think the retaliatory nature of it is important. we're not looking to pick fights with people. we are looking to react to people who we think are coming afterus or coming after our readers . i do think the term fake news is you brought up a breitbart story that we got totally wrong and said that's fake news i'd say that's fake news. we try our best not to do that but effectively it's true. >> you talk about focusing on 3 media companies. new york times, bloomberg, nbc universal. talk about the new york times and your decoder ring or people who are going to read it. >> i think that in the new york times they have a list of priorities that they use in order towhen they do you there curating .

and there's expiration elements and a lot of people act like it's so obvious what should be the front page story and who are the heroes and who are the villains and it's not true . there's patterns i lay out in 15 or so rules but i noted how the new york times for example would get glamorous photos on the front page. ap would get a dark photo or no photo. there were if they're writing a story that gets an narrative like trump did something bad or the coronavirus is going to ravage all society, when they feel like they can back it up they put that on the front page and they would put the argument or the piece of information that fits that narrative at the top of the article but when it comes out for example, one example eyesight in the book how so many outlets but that florida was going to reopen disney world last summer.

it was going to create all those super spreader events all these outlets put in big bold super spreader events, this is all horrible and everyone's going to die . when it turned out weeks later there was no evidence of any super spreader events from disney reopening, those stories did not make the front page and eventually they were more varied, they're not front-page stories, their stories buried within the paper and you start seeing these patterns and i think it's fun to point out i look what you're doing here. there's information that contradicts your point around paragraph 17 so they might included, they just don't put it at the top. i do try to make it more clear now in the book but it's not and you could take a picture with your phone reading the new york timesand it's like a game . >> you write about in the book about the tweets that some staffers made before they joined some cases when

they were in college, controversial cases. what's the newsworthiness of the significance of that. why should we be talking about the current new york times staffers. >> were they all collegiate tweets and one of the examples. >> below them more , right and gina, i believe the tweets that they have in front of me but they were not . >> but like, why is this worthy of talking about in the context of the modern-day new york times ? >> it's not about the individual in most cases. in some cases it's so extreme and they rise to such a high level like sarah johnstone. they're just so over-the-top and they've notbeen retracted . >> she did at least some of those while staff. >> or at least right before, so it was tom wright in

particular, purely a hypocrisy and i point out that breitbart has been fending off claims that where anti-semitic despite our support my orthodox jews who on the company and just an admitted bias towards 100 percent of the time. and it's been enabled i believe by the establishment press who does employ people who have had these thoughts in the past and have not had to direct them so precise he wasn't fired, i don't think he should have been fired. i did not call for his firing nor did anyone at breitbart but you point out they pose as an authority on anti-semitism when they employ people like that and they're the ones who are calling us anti-semitism. they portray themselves as the umpires of what's going on in america and really international life and it's not true .

>> are you not in those circumstances contributing to the kind of outrage archaeology where people dig through the social media dumpster of people in the past. is that a good thing for us to go to regardless of the hypocrisy angle, should i be looking and seeing what kind of careful things you wrote in high school that bring down breitbart once and for all? >> it's a tough decision in the newsroom because i'mstuck between a rock and a hard place because the left is going to engage in this behavior regardless . if we extend the courtesy to them that everything should be off them which by the way when the lady from axial scott fired from her job for a tweet when she was 17, that was outrageous and i think i said so publicly onmy national radio show . she should not have left that job.

she should not have had to put out kind of a we be statement about it as well. she should have said i was 17 years old and you should take a hike but i do think that there's only two choices. there's either a left of left use this tactic to try to destroy people who are in my audience and even on my staff and have no pushback atall . or you do it in a way where we highlight that they're not authoritative on this . they have no business, they're in glass houses and should not be casting stones but do it in a way where not calling on them to be fired, just pointing out that their massive hypocrites so it's a tough call and we take a case-by-case. there's many cases where we have had things, that have come across my desk that i haven't run with because i think it's too much of a cheap shot but sometimes it does make a point and it seems like the right decision . >> who is lorene powell jobs and what is the emerson collective and why should the media be aware of it? >> this is an amazing story.

lorraine powell jobs is one of the most fascinating characters. it is someone i knew almost nothing about which is irrelevant . she's the widow of steve jobs who is the genius behind apple and also pixar when he was on hiatus from apple. he stayed busy inventing pixar so when he passed away in his 50s she inherited 10 million, something like that. her network is perhaps 20. i'm sorry, $20 billion. so she's one of the wealthiest women on the planet. and if you it's it's very limited things written about her or she doesn't do a ton of public appearances but what you would learn about her is that she is a woman in tact and she is a philanthropist but if youlook into what she does she's not really in tech . she's an heiress who

inherited a bunch of money from tech and she's in charge of this thing called the emerson collective which is run as her personal trust and the emerson collective is this hybrid philanthropic and investing arm. if that sounds confusing i still don't get it and i've been investigating for months but i think that's 100 percent on purpose and it's to hide exactly what its objective is and the emerson collective has a lot of people, obama alumni on their board and they fund almost exclusively democratic causes and they all these media outlets and they own all different types of media outlets from the ultra credible to the completely and arguably not credible. they are the biggest owners of the atlantic. they lobby over 100 years old . founded by ralph waldo emerson. they've got a lot of people. it's got some pull. axial is, very popular. and they are the biggest shareholders of that. but also the more activists. pro-public of for example. the mother jones.

they're clearly trying to get victories for the left. now this is a millennial focused viral videos and something that is designed to where denies content if you have a democrat against conservatives but then there's something called acronym and that's a nefarious one and a group that really should even on the left you should look into this because this is a group that owns the carrier newsroom which is to make a long story short what they do is they launder the big news, democrat talking points and actual democrat talking heads into local news outlets and marine powell jobs, then they put together and she also funds democrat candidates. she's had hundreds of donations from democrats including, like harris who is seen as a close personal friend and ally. the atlantic barely stopped short of endorsing her in the 20/20 primary and i used some of the quotes in the back the

atlantic aswhen they were writing about them . if you're on the right, you're going to be uncomfortable reading. they're so over-the-top in their phrase. then she's got this whole most important person added, networks with the democratic staff, networks with the activist media and she uses all this scenery where she's appropriated ralph waldo emerson in her office. it's just an amazing character that is unspeakably powerful and almost entirely anonymous to the american public and until this book i don't think anyone knew her name. >> the atlantic is not your cup of tea but in your book you write as a news out what the atlantic isabominable . horrible journalists, often horrible people. my god, what did they do to your cheerios? >> that was a, i did use some flair there.i used some color, i was not happy with the atlantic but i went through a couple of stories

where they work arguing really against i think it was ultrasounds because they lead to fewer abortions. even if you are pro-choice i don't know why you would want more abortions which i find that position as a pro-choice ican understand wanting more abortions is just repulsive . they argue for a chinese model in the government which is another theme of the book is the chinese influence over american media but they want more model, they argued for a chinese model of censorship which i know the top libertarian you ask why i would be pretty appalled by that coming froma major american publication . we should be more like china when it comes to censorship. >> follow-up may be using bloomberg as an example . how is corporate media in the united states following the dictates of chinese sensors?

>> this is something we've seen through a lot of the elements of the book and i paint a broad picture of how certain outlets virtually every major outlet does do major business in china and knowing how ruthless china is to people who do not, who stand up for china's efforts to keep this pristine image of itself. you know there's going to be a certain level of obsequiousness, compliance and i would say compromising of american values and principles in order to do business in china. take nbc for example which is part of comcast universal. abc is part of disney. it's part of abc disney. we saw some of these major deals taking place that have linked the chinese model with the american newsindustry . i'm not saying it's a direct

link but if the newsroom starts stepping out of line there's lack of incentive from headquarters to say if you keep doing this you're going to hurt this market in the world in america which is china and we're selling movies there, we've got theme parks there and you're going to ruin that. that's a major disincentive to report accurately on china and in bloomberg's case i think it's proven out to be an incentive to just engage in absurd behavior and i lay it out comprehensively in the book but i documented bloomberg and bloomberg lp which for people who are unfamiliar with bloomberg because not everyone gets their news from bloomberg there the most powerful financial news outlet in the world . i believe world journalists at 80 and the new york times, cnn and the wall street journal combined and their revenue for a year is at

least double what fox and cnn is so there a massive outlet and they are one of the few american companies that gets to do a lot of business in china because the political party in china resides decides who gets to come and go and it appears as though in order to maintain that level of access bloomberg and his top executives have flown to beijing and elsewhere in the region beijing in particular on a regular basis over the last few years and the only evidence of the meetings appears on china's propaganda website which i've gone through meticulously for the book and we can only take their word for it because they wouldn't respond to me when i reached out but the content of the meeting was introducing china to america using chinese stories to the west in cooperation between america and chinese media and then you see neighbors, when one of the major funders are democrats. they go on tv and start talking about how the fusion thing is not a dictator and of course he is, how youdoing a good job . he's the biggest polluter on the planet and he still

making profiles. it still on all these excuses by bloomberg, you start putting two and two together and it's all a business move for a guy who has a seems to have a bit of a napoleon complex and is worth $200 billion. >> who is the sleeping giant for what is sleeping giants and news garb. most people are not aware of these things. talk about the significance and how theyintersect with your work . >> there part of this generation of self-appointed censors who are trying to police the internet and try to sanitize it from content that they would argue is either fake news or creating violence or spreading disinformation but the pattern is more that they're doing it for people that are putting up content that does not fit the establishment narrative of the democrats. and as is so often the case throughout the book in the document their test papers are breitbart. sleeping giants was

apparently their founder.a guy named max as an ad executive and a woman in tech i believe named nandini who are these person who didn't go to breitbart routinely until donald trump one but when he won and we were associated with trumps by a started to check us out and we found a few opinion pieces that most of them written tongue-in-cheek and clearly the voices of specific authors and they were used, they use that to try to see the entire website as some sort of radical extreme pain that must not have advertising. so they went around with a astroturf group called people on twitter asking advertisers not to advertise on breitbart and what happened is some of them went with it. they probably ideologically do disagree. some of them went with it we presume because they were under some pressure . and other times we think that

it was a people stuck with us. so they did this for a year and then expanded to tucker carlson and others but whatever ends up happening during this process is the sleeping giants reset the day , companies thought about their online advertising and i think we detail in the book, i don't want to get too granular but the way online advertising is done is generally goes to a third-party broker typically google or a new job like that and they match the reader with the content. they have an algorithm that thinks if you're reading x and you probably will like why products and it's mutually beneficial so it's mutually beneficial for covid-19 because you're going to get product placed but that our reader might buy and it's beneficial for the company who's selling the product because their product is appearing on eyeballs that

are likely to buy it. the system works fine and no one was unhappy for the most part until sleeping giants said wait a minute, what if you don't want your company to appear on that content regardless of who's the reader and what people started thinking about that was because breitbart was supposed to be so horrible and miserable but what ends up happening is the advertising business started to extrapolate out and they said maybe we don't want to advertise content about the coronavirus or about donald trump or about war and all these topics were starting to seem gratuitous for you to putadvertising on the stories . this totally devastated the advertising industry . now breitbart are lean and mean, we don't have a lot of staffso we didn't mind . we survived the campaign but what's interesting is the rest of the news media sometimes did markedly worse than we did during this time which is why traffic during

websites in the trump years we were up so high and yet ad revenue was down and you can thank the sleeping giants. so if you are a person who can get a raise or you had your job cuts during the advertising downturn of recent years, i would ask those of you if this is what they had in mind. i know that was a huge answer on sleeping giants. >> .. it's an absurd thing like if you, we syndicate the ap solar breitbart ap story for example, will get a red block audit because breitbart is not

trustworthy but the new times syndicate ap. if they put up the same exact story they get a green shield indicating that it safe. safe to read this. it totally bogus, funded by microsoft and its decide to shut out people block the status quo. >> these stories call to mind whack-a-mole nature of online activity. every day you look on facebook or the most popular pages maybe this is tweaked in some way yet in sight but issues like dan von gino, breitbart, ben shapiro. it's constantly that. use a phrase especially in the latter half of the book of the silicon valley masters of the universe. can they be masters of the universe when it is so easy to route around what you're doing? >> i think there's a facebook is a noteworthy, is noteworthy

because they have allowed for some conservative content to do very well. they content though that works on facebook is not all of our content. a lot of content that's most popular with our readers get back to check in some facebook even if it's true. the best example as we recording this, i know this will air later, having fact checks with you about wuhan lab theories that were not checked by establishment sanctioned fact checkers and then as it turns out now they're rethinking that. the things breitbart puts out that are true so often get fact check as false or misleading because we didn't supply enough contact. where's blatant falsehood from seen it in your times et cetera thrive. we are not treated equally on those platforms. we noticed the ship after the 2016 election when when it comes to facebook. breitbart was a number one

tickets outlive come very close with breitbart and new times and the "huffington post" in terms of influence ahead of 2016. at the the beginning of 2018 facebook switch their algorithm, turned a dial. our traffic plummeted on facebook not to zero but we were in the top five down to about 20 in terms of most popular publishers. cnn went up during that time and it is clearly there's a manipulation. we were not banned per se but i'll reach was diminished which hurt our business. we can weather some of the songs because of our size but a lot of our friends and colleagues went completely. they sunk so much in the business model being facebook shares. while breitbart does very well in facebook i believe we would be doing much better if there were not a lot of these, i governor put in place by people who are unelected unaccountable in silicon valley who never explain themselves. it's all very mysterious what

they do but twitter clearly sensors conservative speech and conservative falsehoods more than not just leftist -- no matter how much calls upon us from overseas leaders are allowed to stay on the page whereas a normative conservative thought can get thrown off the twitter. google is the clearest example where in may last year breitbart traffic on joe biden's stories went literally 20 unless you put the word right part in the google search you will never ever get a story from breitbart even an exclusive story. if i went to donald trump during the campaign and got an exclusive quote about joe biden it was not going to show up in google searches unless you searched for breitbart. that's manipulation and that is a masters of the universe type behavior because they are controlling so much of information we consume each day. whether or not it's a pure blanket boycott or censorship that very some outlet to outlet but clearly there doing massive

mental manipulation. do you disagree with that that they're doing something? >> absolutely doing things right and left on a daily basis and if it the suppression of the hunter by the story particular in october and november of last year and kicking the near post off of twitter gratuitously for a week and they say this, i don't really care openly much about the hunter biden story. we can disagree off-line about that but i don't want twitter to be kicking off politicians and saying to long-established newspaper you can't write about this. it's inherently ridiculous. the question becomes and this is what i will not ask you the question, but like what is a remedy? you mentioned that these are unelected people. we don't want to elect or social media platforms. the phrase use at the end and this is strong coming from a conservative and a civic that what we hear from years ago.

our reader to get when conservatives take our next their top priority should be restraining a tech, holding them accountable for the anti-conservative bias favoritism towards corporations and monopolistic tendencies. every available evidence weaken these monopolies and oligopolies should be considered unquote. do you think having the federal government weaponized to check about the people based on their viewpoint is going to end well for free speech? >> i don't know if that that i would boil it down exactly. what i would look at now is the vast majority of free speech which is i i know the letter f the law with the first amendment is talked about the government but the reality is is that conservative speech is not in as valdas liberal speech at this time according to the people who controlled the most. how to deal with it is more of a challenge come something that's up for debate here clearly

whatever we are doing is networking. it's leading to clear manipulation on behalf of democrat politics which i go to in the book a number of times and you cite a perfect example just a total of 200 biden story which was seen as was branded russian disinformation and memory hole. we are getting crushed not by the democrats. with getting crushed by people in silicon valley who are controlling the first amendment at this time. either we are trusting them with our first amendment or something that must be done about it. this is one of the biggest challenges of our time because if we do nothing what's going to happen is you're going to see every year more conservatives getting removed, memory hold from the internet. then what are our options? this is why think will have to use the state as test kitchens and see what can survive legal challenges because not everything will. there needs to be a lot on the

table and that wouldn't limit it to the government do something like breaking up discoveries because they're big enough now and monopolistic enough where that should be consideration. antitrust laws seems ineffectual here so that should be looked at again whether that needs level of reform, reformed indications these the act section 230 are big but i don't think people understand how to do that properly. these are tough calls but i don't think just leaving this one up to we will just build our own twitter. what would happen with parler. they did build her own and amazon kicked him off because too much infrastructure that we need be built by conservatives to compete that we just can be totally destroyed by the time that happens. >> you write in masters of universe parlaying it is a peer to be the suppression of conservative friendly stories and the elevation of hoax

narratives that benefit joe biden were enough to swing the election on its own. the masters of universe with the single biggest deciding factor in the 2020 election, unquote. how is that any less conspiratorial let's say than what msnbc talked about for three years after 2016? >> i show it in the date and i show it with a survey that media research center did when they laid out the top narratives that were going against joe biden, which is hunter biden scandals and some of his business dealings that kamala harris was most radical leftist in the senate police according to one major survey, and that joe biden had been accused of a sexual assault when he was in the senate by a staffer. this is something, we are supposed to believe all women. all of the good news that was coming out of donald trump's america and donald trump's america you were saying terrific job numbers, peaceably turned to

the middle east for the first time in my lifetime, and the vaccine was on track which was shocking everyone, be included and all that stuff was and a few others and media research center highlighted this in a survey and they concluded 17% of people who voted for joe biden had they been aware of all eight of the things they laid out which can i go through in the book they would not have voted for biden. as me they voted for trump but it means they wouldn't have voted for biden. i think the logic that the people who control our information are the people who are the ones who can decide the most votes and swing the most votes. i don't think that's conspiratorial at all. how else are people going to choose where the boat unless it is based on what they're reading and talking about with friends and family? i don't know what else would swing the vote that much. is it tv ads? i don't know what the alternative is. >> as someone who went on msnbc

quite a lot in 2016, 17, 18, 19 whatever some would say the election was rigged or was in some way like manipulated, hacked, i would does point out no. no when cutting between the voter in the voting machine as far as we know. there might have been individual anomalies but using that word is contentious. as is the notion that when hundred thousand dollars with the facebook ads as you point out and about some hours going to swing things. it's positing individual consumers as being sheep, a robot sheep you can press the right button on social media platform and is going to change your to quote a guy saying as many as 15 million votes. that's bananas. 15 million votes were not changed by social media, do you think? >> i don't know if 15 million votes were changed from social media. it's impossible to quantify that thing but i do think the numbers were so narrow and and i goh

in the book exactly how narrow the margins were in these swing states. it was tens of thousands of votes overall and most a couple hundred thousand votes swung the whole election. he does need to be 15 million, doesn't need to be a fraction of that. it just needs to be enough people in those states, georgia, pennsylvania, michigan, wisconsin, arizona in the electn as a totally different outcome and do i believe that silicon valley then fair to trump and republicans and people like breitbart entered as the same the scene in is treated that the would've been tens of thousands of more votes that went at least against biden? absolutely i believe that would be the case. so the 15 million number i cite that as an example of a case being made by scholarly i who votes democrat, robert epstein. he wants biden to win. it is a perspective that is not an adult and a don't think it's fair to dismiss it as

conspiratorial. it is no more than the stuff for getting of a consistent basis. it's impossible, it's impossible back up on a literal level but it does make you consider the power of social media which is not indented which is accepting social media as a given in our life and if you think people need understand and opened the book makes this case that taking seriously the power they have over our politics is so immense, it's incalculable. >> you have a long section in the back talking about the election and how we should think about whether the stop the steal slogan as as a concept of lel challenges and your main case against the weight election was conducted was against mail-in voting to ottawa to litigate everything because we don't have enough time and it's a bit of distraction but it want to drill down about the mail-in voting section. an president pandemic. feature contention democrats and the media really, really push for mail-in voting and mail-in

voting is more manipulative whole and creates holes in the chain of things and it creates vulnerabilities for democrats have more strength. just one narrow question on that is, and yet we expected there to be hijinks without, would we not have seen or would we have seen donald trump gain in cities? we did it ever. he gained in new york city on talking to from now. i think he gained in philadelphia. he did in big cities and in 201650 would imagine democratic run big machines would be if they had like an ability with a thump on the skill that's exactly where it would happen. >> yeah, it's i think trump gain sorely from the mail-in voting but you lost within again because biden was gaining more. that's like, for example, of people come to the border illegally, some of them are going, if they were given a vote

come some of the revolt trump but more of the new people vote democrat. i think mail-in voting is similar. if you make it come easy to make it to vote by mail, the more people are going to vote by mail, and that will benefit both sides but because it benefits biden by greater margin, greater% to vote biden. i met drastically favors democrats. i think the stats bear that out. i don't think anyone thought it would be conceivable joe biden would get 20 million more votes than barack obama got. that was due to mail-in voting which was, make more of an institution because ostensibly because we need to stay safe in the pandemic. most people still do is close to most people went to vote on election day and there was no super. >> event from it. it was all designed to make it easy for democrat ballots to get cast and for community organizers to do their work to at a minimum yet people who

otherwise not inclined to vote to vote for democrat. >> you have a subhead at the top of book called a charlottesville hoax which is a phrase you see a lot in conservatives media and then critiques of mainstream media in that section you quote the fake news narrative that trump said it would very find people on both sides of that tragedy happen. f hold him around to the end of his presidency, unquote. the broader trump quote you do include in their, he says come you had some very bad people in that group but you also people that were very find people on both sides. so how is the very find people fake news kind of said there's very find people on both sides? i've seen this a lot and i literally don't understand why that is -- >> it's right there in the book, the next page over. it's a lesson and after trump

said very fine people. he said not the neo-nazis, i condemned them totally and us exact quote come not the neo-nazis, i condemned in code totally and that is, it's right there in the book is less than a minute later said the neo-nazis he condemns them and that was totally ignored because it was 61 seconds after you said there are five people both sides. the media can conveniently cut it off. but he said find people on both sides. but a minute later one minute later he said not the neo-nazis. i don't how much better he can do than to say not the neo-nazis. >> right, but he did say that for for a five people on both sides. i mean, maybe i'm just literalist in the use of quotes but like and may be i saw the condemnation of the neo-nazis myself and internalized it, yes, he condemned those people have been he also said very find people both sides. i just don't see how that in itself is a hoax. feature contention that people deliberately chopped off that of

the context and pretended that it didn't exist? >> yeah, i think over time it morphed into the cult neo-nazis very find people which he did that. he said specifically those are not find people. i think originally it was a big debate over statute and was not they should come down and do some people are one of the statues down because they represent something they don't like and some people like the statues and if they could represent something that is defensible and they would march. and then the requirement n both sides and obviously radical people probably races with the tiki torches, i'm not defending anything at charlottesville at all, i'm saying there are these people who were there who are probably just protesting because he didn't want the statues taken dead. i don't know if i call them very find people that they are not neo-nazis are open. some of them were and they were condemned. some of them were not neo-nazis, they don't have to be content. to ackley every single person there was a neo-nazi was pretty

laughable. we did so much worse in this country come some horrible racial hate crimes. this is why think one person died, a white woman and we obsess over this as a nation we did need to come it wasn't new as bad as immediate made a scene and the tide to make a like trump was at the center of it which is not true in the slightest. >> you say about some journalists on people in the media their ultimate goal is to cancel america at least in the traditional sense. what do you mean by that? >> so perfect example is 1619 19 project into a lot of detail in the book and how the origins of it were to reset america's history, collective memory about the way we think about our own country, to reset our collective memory from we were founded in 1776 with these ideals e pluribus unum in god we trust liberty, all these things, first amendment, second amendment, the

things we love so much and even for the most of it is universal sometimes of the second amendment for some people but it is one of these things where that was the founding doctrine or so we were told. we were being told our whole upbringing has some sort of giant hoax and really we were found in 1619 1619 with tht slave colony. and it was specifically specifically with how is a written individual 1619 essay to preserve the institution of slavery. we were found specifically because we wanted to of slavery and that's what's in our dna which of course makes america and much more horrible place to escort if that's true. of course a lot of professors including mainstream african-american studies professors refuted much of 1619 that i think that's a perfect example of it's not enough just to win a debate or get democrats and liberals collected. a lot of the people who are in the mainstream american media at this time are making a very

concerted effort to try to reset america's founding principles away from those god-fearing liberty loving ideals that i grew up on that is just a racist fight but that is our core. >> follow up on that in your conclusion one of the things you say is that we can no longer hide from the left. time is of the essence. the left cannot be at peace. they do not one compromise. they do not want to educate or reform for the want to absorb or destroy, become one of them or they will come for you. it's only a matter of time. sounds pretty dire. >> yeah, i think it is tight and we have a couple of weapons secretively speaking to fight back. i disavow political violence but as long as free speech ravitch has picked this is a lesson i learned from andrew breitbart when i was his first employee. andrew was a fearless warrior and he was someone who told me

early on and and i learned o countless examples that doing what the left wants is not going to win them over. the only way to win them over is to be converted so they can use you as some sort of a a bludgn against the rest of the right and they really would like to see you crushed. at breitbart again is a a pert example of this. we constantly been called racist and all sorts of things. my entertainment editor is a black man. my copy chief is a black woman. again my top senior editor is an orthodox jew. incredible effortless diversity within the company. is this ever applauded? of course not. the left was mad we used to put up more opinion pieces that were more inflammatory and designed to provoke. we don't do that as often now. does the left right nice pieces how breitbart has content? of course not because they are not interested in us calm again. they want us to go away because

we still have the same core political principles as we had. we just articulate them and maybe a a slightly different . it pretty much similar but it's never enough. they will never give your accolades for that and that's the message and tried to send to people who think that a healthy debate with the left, not liberals. liberals are wonderful, open-minded or i love talking to liberals but as people and d left which i believe a running most of our newsrooms now they are not interested in my perspective or your perspective for the most part. they are interested in absorbing us. >> i invite you to see if there's any tension between two things you wrote near the end. first is or to defeat corporate media conservatives must interact with them only when it is strategically advantageous to do so. and then later, , america has entered a dark moment where dialogue with certain people who hold certain viewpoints is verboten. this is a dangerous trend and one that must be resisted intensely. so which is it?

>> i think it's a both. you can engage in a dialogue on corporate media because they control so much of the platform. that's what i've our elected use of social media. we are good at it at breitbart a person i don't like it but i do use it because i'm not naïve. i don't think single-handedly i can change the american people's perspective on this topic in one fell swoop. i would love a day when you are not as addicted to social media and social media isn't all about angry leftism as it is on twitter so often. until that day is here are my choices are either opt out and be totally irrelevant or opt in to a certain degree which i think is advantageous. while we are building our own stuff i don't want to send a signal to people who are in the middle independent liberals who are genuinely cares about what we're thinking that we're not up for a robust debate and even a cordial debate. it doesn't need to be bellicose

all the time. i do think so this element of the left which is clearly distinguishing liberals, which has a wild totalitarian streak is taking over more of her corporations. i find it more consistent than jew i understand your point in general but it is a process, not something, not a light switch. if it was a light switch i would try to flip it but that can't be done. >> where do we go in the waning two minutes of this conversation but also your sense of where we are in this kind of cultural division, cultural war if you want to call it that? isn't going to get more intense and more bloody before it gets more peaceful and different? >> i don't think it will get bloody. i don't think americans in general are that committed at this moment to that. i don't want to see it get bloody editors of violence. i will say that over and over. but i do think there is an

element that is fired up but for the most part people are fat and happy enjoying their creature comforts and smart phones and meal delivery services and streaming. they are more content to show up and vote every so often and then growl on social media. i would love to see more civic engagement even lower level. join your homeowners association or your school board. unfortunately to answer your broader point i think we have two choices. the pendulum needs to swing back towards letting the best ideas when, having a bigger form of debate and ideas, not just call it racist for sexist and your canceled when you disagree. we will do this thing where we are very bifurcated what people will move to red states primitively states and that's what it would be and eventually companies will rise up and will become the equivalent of separate drinking founts. that would be horrible and i don't know what that looks like because we're so interconnected

economically but it's got to be one of the other to me. it's either the pendulum swings back or this bifurcated nation. >> in the last minute we have here, give the viewers who don't share your politics a reason to buy your book and also this is breitbart.com. >> thank you so much for that. and then one thing is i tried to immerse myself in one of the big advantages we have breitbart is that we read left-wing newspaper we read centrist news, whatever centrist news. we read establishment publications, anti-salvation. and the and find common ground in a lot of areas because we think of ourselves as yes, we're right of center but we also have a lot of libertarian writers, populist writer and a lot of different perspectives. if you pick up this book you at least get an entertaining version of what media at breitbart is thinking, what i'm editing the pages of breitbart data dating if we dismissed the idea in their it's enriching to

get the perspective the same way i will read countless lefty publications this year and liberal publications visscher. >> the book is making the news.

office to appear in the near future on booktv. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪