tv Q A CSPAN December 6, 2009 8:00pm-9:00pm EST
8:00 pm
8:01 pm
ian? >> i did not know. it describes something that has been going on for years, intellectually engaged narrative nonfiction. but i did not invent it. like i say, i think it is an example of promotion but my publisher. >> if you look at the new york times best-seller list, and i do not know how often this has happened, you have four books either on the paperback or hardback best seller. just explain -- you are no. 8 on the hardback -- i'm going to get myself messed up -- your no. 8 on the paperback. that is with "tipping point brad
8:02 pm
>> is a book about -- "tipping point." >> is a book about the metaphors of epidemiology and behalf -- and applies it to behaviors'. it is a primer on how change happens. >> any idea how many books have been so by now? >> i do not know. it is curiously difficult to find the question now. >> do you pay any attention to numbers? >> not really. i think it is important to always be looking forward. if you dwell too much on what you have done, you fall in the bad habits and repeat yourself and get trapped, i think, a little bit.
8:03 pm
>> so you do not go back and read anything you written. >> not since it was published. >> does it bother you that you might forget something? >> someone will write to me and say something and i will say, did i write that? i'm horrified to learn that i read that. >> this is early in december when we're recording this. no. 7 on the paperback list for nine weeks is "blank brad >> this is about decisions that we make in an instant, when they go bad and when they get better. >> an enormous amount of what we do is something that we do like that. i found it interesting and wanted to explore that
8:04 pm
phenomenon. the boilers that were done in 2005. and now "out liers," what is that about? >> it is about success. it's important to understand what are the reasons why certain individuals outliers --are outliers. it looks at culture and luck and generation, all those things that lead to success. >> and the current one, "what the dog saw, "what is that about? >> it is a collection of essays for the "new yorker" of the last years. the first is a profile of cesar millan, the dog whisperer on
8:05 pm
national geographic. my first thought was to write an essay about what does he see when he sees a dog. he has this extraordinary ability to calm dogs. it is incredible. he would walk into our room and the dog simply looks at cesar and stops. and i thought, no, the interesting question is not what does cesar c. when he looks at adult but what does the dog see when he looks at cesar? anytime you put dog in the title of a book, i think you're doing well. the dollar did you pick the title? >> with some suggestions for my editors -- from my editors. they're not always the best pieces.
8:06 pm
people had idiosyncratic reasons for liking things that are not shared with the rest of the world. you have to check your preferences of against others. >> i read, and you tell me but you got as much as $4 million for this book. >> that is not even -- weigh less. -- way less. i think that people know well enough that if that number does not come from me or my publisher, then chances are it might not be true. i do not really -- i think that most readers are properly skeptical about the things that they read. 19 >> 96, you went to work for the of what new yorker pratt --
8:07 pm
>> 1996, you went to work for the "yorker." >> down the road is where the plight very comes from. we're now on the map, we think. the plight very device, not for free. -- is where the blackberry comes from. the oilers this last book is no. 5. we're talking of all the books that you have done before, when you go out and speak, which look to people asking the most about? >> that is interesting. "tipping point" has probably been read by the most people. it has been out along the. it has in the -- it has an idea
8:08 pm
that applies is up to different domains. that is an occasion for much discussion. but "outliers,"it affects everyone's interest in one way or the other. it is hard to say what the -- which one has provoked the most responses. but it would probably be "tipping point." >> sunset if you are -- some say you are paid as much as $80,000 to give a speech. >> i hate to talk about money. it can be a very good living, it is true. >> anywhere from $40,000 to $80,000 to give a speech. what is the experience like to stand up for 90 minutes? do you worry about it? >> not really.
8:09 pm
i do not get nervous before public speaking. for a very simple reason. i am a nervous person, but i used to be a runner and would get insanely nervous before races, so much more that i could not sleep for weeks beforehand. ever since then, everything else i have ever had to do which seem scary, i would say, is it as scary as running a race? no, so i never get nervous. i really like giving talks, because i think that the discipline of being forced to tell a story in front of people and explain yourself through spoken word, opposed to written, is very important for writing. there are parts that beautifully translate to the task of writing on paper.
8:10 pm
since i started to do my speaking, i think i have become much better storyteller. and the other thing that is crucial about it is that it forces you to get outside your world. and that is hugely important if you're going to do, as i do, this journalism. i am by nature somewhat reserved and reclusive. but i need by virtue of my job to meet people and hear about new ideas, here stores, get some perspectives, and so what speaking has allowed me to do -- i have met people that i never in a million years would have met before. it is fascinating. it constantly replenish is my store -- replenishes my store of information about the world. more often, you start a chat with somebody, they will tell
8:11 pm
you something that is incredibly interesting. and they did not realize it is interesting because it is familiar to them. it does not have to be as formal as that. the amazing thing is that -- this is one of my rules of conduct -- i think that everyone is interesting. i honestly, seriously believe that, that when people are talking about things that they know well and do well, they are almost always interesting. and if they are not, it is generally your fault because you are not asking the right questions and making people comfortable and not their fault. once i learned that lesson, my journalism became a lot easier. >> use it to a group recently, in times of crisis -- this was november 19 --
8:12 pm
>> this comes from -- i wrote a talk after the financial crisis, part of it in the "new yorker," the battle of chancewood lee beat hooker, and he should not have. it is an incredibly interesting battle. there are all reasons -- there are many reasons why hooker blew it, but he was arrogant and overconfident. he thought he had a lee so completely outgunned that he no longer had it taken seriously as an opponent. and i thought that there was a truly extraordinary lesson in that.
8:13 pm
overconfidence turns out to be -- psychologists tell us -- the most common kind of flaw. it incompetence is the disease of the novice, overconfidence is the disease of the expert. one of the ways to explain what happened on wall street two years ago is precisely this. the financial industry began to be paid as hooker did. they began to be selling command of their decisions that that they become american. this notion that our leaders need to be humble more than they need to be good is really important. not to say that they do not need to be good, of course they do. but as we get better and better of what we did, we run an increasing risk of
8:14 pm
overconfidence, and we need to keep that -- the task of a leader is to keep that psychological problem in check. and they need our help to do that. >> can you name a leader of the date you think shows humility? -- that you think shows humility? >> interesting, i thought you were going to ask another question which would be more difficult to answer. there is a wonderful book written a couple of years ago called "overconfidence and war," in which he walks through virtually every major conflict of the last few years trying to find a humble military leader. and he can rarely find one. the preponderance of the leaders he looks at suffer from some kind of major overconfidence.
8:15 pm
so in that realm, it is hard to find. but that is not to say that there is not humility at all kinds of levels. i had a conversation a couple of weeks ago, giving a tall, and i was seated next to a guy who ran a regional bank in akron, ohio. we talked about his business. how was your business? he said, we are more than fine, we have been bought by a big bank in chicago. why are you find? and he is an older man, and he said i had been through this three times before. i suspected that he got humbled 25 years ago in the early 1970's. and he never forgot that lesson. it is in times like that that we understand why experience and
8:16 pm
learning from experience is so important. that is not a meaningless triviality. experience matters because there are things that you only learn when you have been humbled. you cannot explain to a 28-year- old that things are going to get bad. it is not going to sink in. but to this man i was speaking to come who sought firsthand and dealt with that, and i am sure went through all manner crises before, it is a lesson that he kept with him. colin powell, before the iraq war, he was the in-house skeptic, because he had been through vietnam. in a first can wait, he had made the decision that others had not. he had never forgotten those lessons. there is another case of someone who appropriately was humbled and learn from experience. and you have got to have people
8:17 pm
like that around, right? >> i have a stack of stuff here that includes praise and criticism. what about iran humility after four enormous success as? this is spent 10 years. it is not happen that many times in history. what does that do your head and run humility? >> it is a good question. there is no denying that change you and how quickly people return your phone calls. it changes how much money you have in the bank. these are things that have positives and negatives to them. i'm lucky in a number of ways. one is that writers -- we have built in a support system that to keep us humble. i have an editor who is not dazzled by any of my books.
8:18 pm
if anything, more willing today to tell me what is not a success than he was 10 years ago. i have a mother who was resolutely unswayed by the opinion of the outside world. after "outliers,"she said, i really like this book, which means come there's not so much to criticize. when you have people that keep you in check, it is easier. and i don't have any real power. i'm not running a major country or investment bank. so the kind of damage i could do if i got overconfident is limited. >> has anything happened from one of your articles, cause and effect, one of your books? people saying i had changed because of this?
8:19 pm
>> yes, the nature of influence that a writer has is very specific. we do not change the world. what we do is we start conversations and maybe if we're lucky those conversations way down the road are developed and enhanced and some idea may affect change. there is a piece and "what the dog saw," called "million-dollar murray pratt it's about homelessness. it describes a man who was an extraordinary public servant and the bush administration. he ran the homeless this policy and he was responsible for dramatically changing the way that we treat the homeless. in city after city, he was the paul revere of this. he traveled incessantly for four
8:20 pm
years, making the argument that it is cheaper to solve homelessness than to treat homelessness. the homeless person who stays on the street costas off far more money than it used simply go and give that person an apartment, someone to watch over them, and find a job. i wrote a piece about his ideas, his crusade, and the larger intellectual context in which he was operating. i did not create that movement by publicized what he was doing -- but i publicized what he was doing great many people tell me that it made their work a lot easier to have an argument, making the case for what they're doing, and helping them overcome skepticism. that was a way in which the riding of the sort that i do is
8:21 pm
8:22 pm
-- essay. it has many interesting parts and i think she is a very smart person. i have to say, i have no idea what those two sentences mean. i am a little bit at a loss at how to respond to them. i have struggled with that of a little bit. there is a little bit -- in people to comment on what i do, there is a dissatisfaction not with me but with my audience, a feeling that they cannot believe so many people would go out and read that. >> we're going to turn that back on if you can get it on, and i will read that.
8:23 pm
in this piece, she writes -- >> do you go to a lot of publishing partners? >> i almost never go to publishing party. when you are making a list of -- when you're sitting someone up, one of the things that you do is you pretend that they are pictures of publishing partners. i have been the one in about three years. >> what about someone calling
8:24 pm
you an idiot? >> the leon of the "new republic," who i obviously like. i wrote many articles for him. it is very odd that he would call me an idiot. i think that he meant that facetiously. >> steven picker. -- pinker. you take out by saying this -- >> what are you getting at? >> i wanted to make the point, and i should say, i generally
8:25 pm
have a lot of respect for stephen pinker. i thought "the language instinct" was a classic. but this comes from a specific scientific and ideological perspective. we're somewhere along the continuum, how much of the nature or nurture guy are you? he is over here -- he thinks that iq means a great deal. and i'm talking about the power of culture and environment. when he criticizes me, he is doing so not because i am violating the rules of scientific understanding, but just because we are at different points on the continuum. and it's not right or wrong or legitimate or illegitimate. it's just a different perspective. >> he is all harvard for
8:26 pm
specter -- he is a harvard respect -- professor. you're right -- -- you write -- >> explain that. >> one of the things that he had to quibble with in his review is an essay i wrote about quarterbacks and teachers. he made this point, i was talking about, teachers are the most important variable in and education. teacher quality explains more than any other factor. i talked about how is really difficult to predict whether someone is going to be a good teacher until they actually teach, right?
8:27 pm
so you can get someone with really great grades. you can get someone who has all manner of degrees. but none of those things are terribly helpful in figuring out who will be a good teacher and who is not. the only way that you have is to spark people teaching and pick people who are good. this is analogous with what starts with quarterbacks. if you look at the history of the nfl team's decisions in drafting college quarterback. you'll see that they do not do a good job of figuring out who will be a good pro quarterback cannot. it is not because they are stupider not trying hard enough, but just because the college game is so dramatically different from the pro game. doing good at one does not predict how well you would do it the other. -- at the other. i e-mailed him and said why are you so sure that it does -- that
8:28 pm
they do a good job of predicting a good quarterback? i had an article in the journal of -- and economics journal. he mailed me back and his sources were not from a scientific journal all. they were from blogger in some other blogger. i was like, why are you attacking me? it was meant in good fun. there's nothing wrong with the dustup now on again. >> going back to your first book, when was the malcolm gladwell tipping point? >> it was getting the job at the "new yorker." once you get into that magazine, your audience grows dramatically. people take you seriously and
8:29 pm
would never taking seriously before. you have an opportunity to write about things at length and leisured that you have never had before. that was clearly -- i was one of many "washington post" reporters. i was anonymous. i was not much of anything and then i got the job and everything changed. >> but at some point along the way, "tipping point" sold a million copies at least. and then "blink" and "outliers,"something happened where people are anxious to get that next book that you write. >> there is this thing where people get comfortable with the way that you look at the world. i loved that book of a " free -- "freakonomics."
8:30 pm
it said light on things that you never thought that economists would have interesting things to say about. i read that book and loved it. the new one comes along, i'd buy it. why? that way of looking at the book -- that have won me over to their particular perspective. it is so unusual, i will not get it anywhere else. i am delighted to have another go with them, hoping for another ride with them. part of what is happening with me is that people read "tipping point", and even if they do not agree with everything i said, they found something
8:31 pm
exhilarating or exciting about the way in which i approach topics. >> and the analysis on the way that your bookseller in the country? >-- andy analysis on the way that your book sells in the kutcher? >> i did not things up. i don't think i am defined by geography or class or income. i typically think of an attitude. i think that they are kind of curious, open-minded, people. i just get that buy from them. >> where, more often than not, which be traveling to speak? >> well, all over. but if you do lot of conventions and company meetings, you do them in warm weather places in the winter. the people come from all over
8:32 pm
the san diego. so you are in san diego. but when you think about where they're coming from to hear you, is from all over the country. >> i will go back to the original analysis in the "new york times calls " back in the middle of november. do you agree? >> very much. that is a little strong. i would not go quite that far. >> four and a political writer -- are you in a political writer -- are you an apolitical writer? >> i am a canadian writer.
8:33 pm
>> he is right in the sense that i am not explicitly political. i am not interested in playing those games. i am interested in providing a different view of things. it never comes up when i'm talking to an audience -- political matters. so there is no opportunity for people to divide themselves along ideological lines when they're listening to me or reading me, because we're not touching on those issues. >> "what the dog saw," 19 articles from the "new yorker brad are you working on another book already? >> i am working on articles for the "new yorker prat."
8:34 pm
my next book is, i am sure, many years away. >> many years. >> to get a good idea. if i never have another good idea for a book, i would never write another book. i think you have to have an idea that is good for a book and then you do it. >> i will not put words in your mouth, but you say, you sold 6 million books, you get $18 million -- you did not have to were agree with that but that is a lot of money. >> i am not a very -- is often the bank somewhere. i'm not big spender. i drive a volkswagen. i don't have an extravagant lifestyle. i grew up in a very -- my family was fundamentally agnostic in
8:35 pm
its spending of money. we did not lack, but we were not terribly concerned with it. it was not meaningful. and i have the same attitude towards it. it's fine. it is better than not having it. but it is not something that makes a great deal of difference in how i live my life. >> at one point, if you say that one woman change the way you view the world. >> she's a psychologist to i wrote about years ago when she wrote a book called the "nurture assumption." she makes a number of arguments, one of which is when you talk about what we mean by environment or influence, all of
8:36 pm
us are shaped in part by our genes and by the world that we grew up and. she wanted to argue, and i think she convincingly did so, that what we mean by that is really years and not parents. -- peers and not parents. parents are less influenced on your life than co-workers and friends. what appealed to me was that -- a lot of my riding is trying to understand the nature of the environment. that is what i come back to again and again. "outliers"is trying to understand the context of the world that people are born into. "blank" is understanding what is going on around you, how that affects your snap decisions.
8:37 pm
i coming back to the issue of what she gave me and my thinking, she clarified what that means, what the environment means, and she said even more powerfully that we have only the dimmest understanding of what the environment means. we can offer up -- use all kinds of myths that are untested. we need to rethink that important word. that was a crucial motivation for me to write some of the books i have written. >> of a fellow named paul greenberg, a conservative paper and a conservative writer, he probably has as harsher criticism as i have seen.
8:38 pm
>> he does not sound very happy, does she? >> do you get a lot of that? >> i don't think i am pretentious. i try not to be. >> are you ponderous? >> people will reach you how they reach you. -- people will read you how they read you. i had to sit down and think about how well i deal with criticism. criticism as a writer is set -- is absolutely inevitable. you always have the paul greenbergs. how do you want to respond to them? i decided early on that i was
8:39 pm
never going to make it a sign of my own success, that i had silenced the critics. i am not out to convert the world. i simply want people to engage in ideas. if they disagree, fine. the other thing that i decided early on, i would be happy if the people that i cared about, the people closest to me, all what i was doing was meaningful. if my mom likes it, if my editor likes it, it might press for an likes it, i am happy. -- if my best friend likes it, i am happy. those are important roles. if you can have some version of that, some kind of system for making sense of criticism, is easier to function. >> he goes on to " joseph epstein.
8:40 pm
8:41 pm
but it matters what you're you were born. the particulars of the cultures that you grew into, the book is one long attempt to complexify this thing. so that is odd. and we were talking about court practice and teachers and have the impetus for that article was all about that we cannot predict this. we have been trying over and over again to simplify this and make it out -- if you simply have a teacher's to greet an aba and the certification, you will be a good teacher. and my article's point was, no, it is messy. you have to let a lot people try and pick the ones and say sadly goodbye to the rest. i spent most of my riding doing the opposite of what he said.
8:42 pm
>> canadian history major? what is the difference between studying canadian history in american history? >> so much. how can you say that? >> what is it that the canadian history professors are teaching -- what is the difference? >> we are a very minor player in the world. so when you are in canadian history, you are learning the history of everybody else, because everything they do is so hopelessly influenced by our larger neighbors and larger allies. so you learn a lot about england and france and america, all kinds of other places. which is useful, i think. i remember as a kid listening to the radio, listening to the
8:43 pm
radio on the cbc news, and the thing about the news it 6:00 on the radio and canada is that talk about the rest of the world. in canada, you cannot give a sophisticated account of what happened that day and confine yourself to a country of 18 million. not enough happened in consequence. as a little kid, i grew up hearing about africa and south america in the news every night. all these places. it is very different when you are in a country like america, where you actually can give the news every night and don't -- i am not saying it is a bad thing. america is so complex and sits at the center of so much that happens, you can have sophisticated conversations about this world just about america. it is a matter of where you are. in canada, we were forced to look outward. and that was a really wonderful
8:44 pm
experience for someone who wanted to go into business and the professionally curious. >> i will not stay on this, but your by george washington and thomas jefferson. you hear about in canada? >> john mcdonald, the man who made independence to the canadian federation. but you hear about lots of other -- you hear about english kings. all my memories of childhood history are completely -- i would hear about the founder of debate in independence -- a jamaican independence. >> because of your mom. >> it was always up there. >> since we last talked, a man and barack obama became president of the united states.
8:45 pm
and he is like you. >> biracial. >> any impact? did you instinctively like him because he was like you? and what do you think of him now? >> i will confess to being a huge fan of his. i would hope not just because he and i are both by racial, -- biracial, but i was initially fascinated by him like many americans. he is exotic, he really is. and he has that princely air about him. he is really quite an extraordinary -- the man he reminded me of was pierre trudeau, the great canadian prime minister who was cosmopolitan and regal in that same kind of way, but a little bit of rain.
8:46 pm
-- aloof. but also charismatic. there is really a lot of similarities between them. and i was profoundly hopeful that his election represented some kind of turning point in the way we think about race. i'm less convinced of that now, actually. >> are you very political? >> i am not. like to say, i am canadian, so i have never quite wrapped my mind around american politics. >> of all the stories you have done since 1996, which one did you spend most time on? >> very easy one to enter. "late bloomers", which it took
8:47 pm
three years to get into the magazine. it with for so many drafts, i cannot even count how many. it was because i had a really interesting idea, which was, i read this book by an economist in chicago which i thought was so fascinating, in which he talked about how genius comes in two very different forms. we talk about the conceptual innovator, the big, bold idea, and the experimental innovator, who is the person who succeeds -- who creates through trial and error. the conceptual innovator is the prodigy, right? and the person who works through trial and error is the late bloomer. he was did not find a late bloomer. -- he was dignifieying the late bloomer.
8:48 pm
i had double of the time to find the right stories to illustrate that -- i had the devil of a time finding the right story to illustrate that point. sometimes you have to be persistent. >> any focused on two people. >> i ended up choosing this novelist, been fountain, who had written a collection of short stories. magical. he was my late bloomer. he published that in his late 40's, after spending 20 years sitting at a kitchen table in dallas being rejected. and my prodigy, the brightest of the young novelist. >> he is on the nonfiction best- seller list. >> an interesting book about vegetarianism. and there's such fascinating contrasts.
8:49 pm
a beautifully illustrate what i think david ellison was talking about. i don't know why it took me so long to find -- but sometimes finding the right story is really difficult. if you rush into print with something that does not quite work, you throw away that idea. that is something you should never do. >> one of the people critiquing use suggests you feel close to naseem taleb. >> i wrote a piece about him maybe four or five years ago. 2002, and he had just written a book, of " fool by randomness." we greatly under estimate the frequency of catastrophic
8:50 pm
events in our life. we also greatly overestimate our ability to control events. under estimate for role of luck and over estimate our own efficacy. nassim is a brilliant man, one of the most gregarious and charming and hilarious people have ever met. as one does sometimes when you write a profile, i just fell in love with a guy. and he has recently written a book called of a glut of the black swan," a huge best seller. -- a book called "the black swan," a huge best seller. and he hugely predicted the events that took place last year on wall street.
8:51 pm
he predicted it. they're using these justifications for enormous risks based on fiction. but i'd do feel an enormous intellectual can ship. if i had to list the people whose thinking have powerfully influence mine, i've nassim very high on that list. i think he is right. it is part of this desire that we have as humans to pretend we are far more in control of things than we actually are. we're not respecting the mystery and the complexity of the world we operate in. >> explain how he made his money. >> nassim had a contraries trading strategy. what he would do is buying out of the money options. he would buy a series of options
8:52 pm
on the stock market which would pay off only if stocks either wind up extraordinarily or, more important, dropped extraordinarily. he had an investment strategy were 99 days out of 100, or more likely 499 days at a 500, he would lose a little bit of money. but he was waiting for a crash. when the crash came, he could make millions of >>. i think the trading firm in which he is involved with made last year and utter fortune. it is really hard to do that. he wakes up every day knowing that there is a 99.9% chance that he will lose money that day. he is banking -- he does not know when it will happen. at some point, there is going to be a big catastrophe. it could be seven years away,
8:53 pm
right? he will lose money every day for seven years. he gets it all back. nobody does that. one of the things that is so fascinating about him is he tries to get that question, why don't people do that more? it is a very rational way of hedging your risk in the marketplace. be prepared for catastrophe. >> where is he from? >> his from lebanon. he is an american now, but his family is from lebanon. i e-mail with him sometimes. one of the great wonderful things about writing these pieces for the "new yorker" is that you get to meet these extraordinary people that you would never be otherwise and spend time with them and get to know them and get -- and keep in touch with them. i did a piece a couple of months
8:54 pm
ago about this brilliant software mobile and silicon valley -- so off wheremogul -- software mogul, who began to coach his daughters basketball team. he encounters one of our little closed cultural world. what happens? he took this team of gross of the national championship. -- of girls to the national championship. when what i had met him? you write the story and you get to know these people. >> was story did you write that was the easiest? >> the opening piece in the volume, the profile of ron
8:55 pm
popeil, the great kitchen gadget entrepreneur. the king of late-night infomercials. one of my favorite pieces that i have ever written, and far away the most interesting. because he is so effortlessly interesting. everything -- you turn on the tape recorder, the person you're writing about starts talking, and you realize, i have to do nothing else. i have to go home and transcribe the tape and it is done. it was literally that way with iran. he started talking, and i rock -- i went out and talk to his cousin and a guy he worked on and one other guy. i transcribed the tapes and put blocks of text and it was done. sometimes it happens. it is a miracle when that happens. you don't forget that. >> what have you done with all those tapes? >> i'm not very organized.
8:56 pm
they are somewhere in a box. >> you are not thinking of that future of a malcolm gladwell collection. >> not very much. >> you could not a graduate school. -- you could not go to graduate school because of your grades? >> i was not a superb student. >> who would you thank for your writing ability? >> my mom was a writer. >> is your dad still alive? >> yes, but he also has -- both my parents have an extraordinarily clear way of expressing themselves, but in speaking and in print. and that has always been my model.
8:57 pm
if you can express yourself, complicated ideas and a clear, simple matter, people will read you. >> you still live in the west village. you intend to live in the united states for the rest of your life? >> i do not know. all of my friends are here. but if i ended up in europe or back in canada, i would not be terribly surprised. >> here they are, all four of them on the new york best-seller list. "what the dog saw." malcolm gladwell, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> for a dvd copy of this program, call877 =call the
8:58 pm
telephone number. the programs are also available c-span podcasts. >> > prime minister gordon brown of the british house of commons next on c-span. and then a journalist who covered the iranian elections talks about being jailed in tehran. after that, another chance to seek "q&a" would offer malcolm gladwell with -- with milmalcolm gladwell. tomorrow on "washington journal
8:59 pm
," the former chair of the president's council on climate quality previews copenhagen, and a director of the nasa goddard study for space studies talks about a new book on climate change. "washington journal" live every day at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> this week the senate continues debate on the health care bill. see it all live on our companion network, c-span2, the only network with the whole debate on edited and commercial-free. to read the bills and to watch video on demand, go to c- span's healthcare hundred >> is his policies that had given us the longest and deepest recession. all it is prime minister thinks that we should be pathetically grateful for this long, deep recession.
192 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on