widgets, that worker will be sought after. america andtion in rises in productivity should lead to a rise in the real wage. host: b host: let's hear from death in edgewater, maryland. what he just said about increase in productivity leading to higher wages, that has proven false over the past 30 years. the middle class has stagnated and now is shrinking, and without the middle class you don't have a housing market. that is my comment. caller: guest: the caller makes a good point on micro-level data. people on the higher income

scale, they are getting the big wage gains, while people on the lower spectrum bargaining hardly any wage gain. this is part of where some of the innovation is coming from, the high-tech sector that requires specialized education, workmen, manual labor, what you see is more global competition. , do wees are asking produce here in america or in china? there is greater competition. it leads to higher wage but not equally across the income scale and the globalization of the economy has made impacted host: mount sinai, new york. anthony. caller: mr. yun, i would ask you to address the presidential pardon and revoke pardon of george bush from what i would call a bankster, who funneled

over $30 million of hud money in when you're alone to political affiliates and not only was he not held accountable, nor was any money paid back in restitution -- i believe it was a class-action suit of 500 homeowners who had been defrauded through the hud program, whereby the builder was using people's names and signatures to basically defraud hud and there was no accountability and not only was the note account ability, but bushresident george pardoned this man and when they scrutinized they revoked the pardon for the first time in history and yet there is no accountability for the fraud and deceit that goes on. oversized houses and it is as if they don't want for people in the suburbs and communities -- they don't want poor people in the suburbs and communities. guest: i don't know about the

specific case but if there was fraud the person should be in prison. but i don't know the specifics of that case. host: let's and with where we began. this is a headline in "the wall street journal" this morning. "the nation association of realtors putting out this information yesterday. what did you find about the november numbers? guest: first half somewhat soft. second half -- i believe it is an aberration. pent-up demand and anecdotal information -- it turns out to be a one-month fluke. let's see and wait. the mortgage rate remaining very low, increased jobs, these are all positive signs for future health of the housing market. , chiefawrence yun economist and vice president at the national association of realtors. more information on realtor.

org. appreciate your time. guest: thank you. tot: coming up next, we talk former cbs news correspondent sharyl attkisson, talking about her book "stonewalled." and then we will open up the phone lines. we will be right back. there is a look at some of the programs you will find christmas day on the c-span networks. holiday festivities start at 10:00 a.m. eastern with the lighting of the national thestmas tree, followed by white house christmas decorations with first lady michelle obama and the lighting of the capitol christmas tree. just after 12:30 p.m., celebrity activist talk about the causes. then at 8:00, supreme court justice samuel alito and former florida governor jeb bush on the bill of rights and the founding others. a.m.,pan2 at 10:00

venture into the art of good writing with steve pinker. then the feminine side of a superhero as jill lepore looks into the secret history of wonder woman. authors talk about their reading habits. on american history tv on eastern,at 8:00 a.m. the fall of the berlin wall with footage of president george bush and bob dole, speeches from john kennedy and ronald reagan. fashion experts on first ladie'' fashion choices and how they reflect the styles of the times in which they live. and then, former nbc news anchor tom brokaw in his years of reporting on world events. christmas day on the c-span networks. for complete schedule, go to cspan.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: and we are back with sharyl attkisson, author, investigative journalist. new book came out in november, "stonewalled: my fight for truth

against the forces of obstruction, intimidation, and harassment in obama's washington." remind viewers why you left cbs this past year and why you wrote this book. guest: the short version is there's nothing left for me to do. we specialized in investigative reporting and in the last couple years those stores had a difficult if not impossible time off and getting on cbs news, so i felt there was no point. host: you wrote the book why? guest: a lot of people had expressed to me -- fellow journalists as well as people in the public -- that they sensed something was going on culturally in journalism and with the news. we would share reflections on what we thought was happening and a trance and i thought it would be a topic of interest. host: you wrote in the book that what is even more dangerous is today, government and big corporations might as well be one and the same." so it is not just what is going on at the networks but it is

larger than that. explained. guest: it is intertwined, in my view. corporations have co-opted many congressional committees as well as members of congress with campaign contributions and other links and ties. to some degree they have co-opted some in the media with corporate and advertising interests. in my views -- congress is not always doing a good job at oversight. the presidency is not doing a good job in his oversight function. what we have now is politics and corporations in some respects are allowed to put out when i call propaganda largely unchecked because of oversight roles not being fulfilled. host: what about the other side of it, the consumer, the consumer of investigative journalists? --there not an update the an appetite there? guest: i think there is a huge appetite for it and that is what was somewhat baffling for us at

cbs and other places as well. people liked the watchdog reporting we do. they don't like much about the news media these days, polls show, but they do like that role, and people at a hard time figuring out why at the one hand the public has a thirst for this information but on the other hand we are having so much, getting it published and on television. host: what did you hear from network executives about the pieces you would bring forward? our viewers are familiar with your work on fast and furious, benghazi, etc. guest: it depends on the time period. the management changed over the years. furious, thend management at the time were very excited about these stories and encourage them and all the way up the line, even to the time i cbs, including the top executives at cbs news, were very complementarity and encouraging of my work. but that did not always translate to the broadcast,

which had different managers and appetites and interests, especially the last couple years. host: as you pitched a story, brought it up, they would ask for what, more, more, more, and then what? guest: the lights would go off. you would go 100 miles an hour practically overnight to zero and it was hard to tell whether interest would go from full course to nothing -- wider interest would go from full course to nothing. we would wonder and speculate and we were not privy to the decisions but it became a pattern, amongst organize push me that formed to some reason certain managers would decide let's not go there anymore after on the one hand telling me initially that they wanted the stories and they like to the stories and wanted as many as we could do on that topic. host: what are you doing out? guest: since march i've been freelancing for a number of organizations. i have not wanted to work for anybody full-time so when people would offer me jobs i would say "how about buying a story from

time to time? my one requirement was that they couldn't do what i felt that some yes -- certainly not most people at guest, but some managers had done in the past myple years, which is in view skew the story can make it come out the way they want instead of the way the facts tell the story. you don't have to publish a story every few but you can't change the essence of the truth of it. you cannot put your personal interest into it. i have had good luck with a number of outlets that have been happy to take those stories. host: there is a market there. do you think that is where investigative journalism is headed? guest: i can'tguest: figure out what is next. i think there is something new being bo of all of this. rne it is not television news are people watching the evening newscasts, 30 minutes of that everyday. it is probably people hunting around on the web for different sources that they trust or

sources on a particular topic and i don't know what will be the paradigm that is new out of this. host: we're talking to sharyl attkisson, her book "stonewalled ," in your reporting over the years for cbs. currently still in investigative journalist. host: what is it about the obama administration in particular? had soi think they have many controversies that they have worked so hard to controversialize reporting of. they have been more aggressive, most journalists would agree, and tried to -- in trying to manage information and controversialize news outlets that publish these stores, attacking whistleblowers inside

federal agencies that there to tell the truth. like i say, the news outlets that have the audacity to report it. they have worked very hard to control the message and controversialize the stories and people who report them and it is a more aggressive effort than what we have seen from other administrations we have covered. but to be sure, other administrations have tried to manage the message. host: so how does it compare to the bush years and continues before that? -- clinton years before that? guest: journalists who have more experience than i have have come to a consensus, including reporters from "the new york times," "the washington post," "usa today," they have said that this is the worst administration for transparency and press freedom that they have dealt with, and that has been my expense as well, not to say that the others have been a piece of cake, because administrations and the federal bureaucracy want to keep information from the

public and manage the message. each one has gotten worse than the last that i have covered. host: is there, though, a line where the administration, when it comes to top-secret and classified information, like with benghazi fast and furious, where they cannot default certain information? guest: sure. the president on the day he came to office said that he ordered agencies to air on the side of disclosure and all most all information gathered on behalf be publiclic should information with exceptions in cases like national security like you are talking about. but what we have seen from this administration and others as reductionsely invoke and intentions or even ignore freedom of information requests entirely for illegitimate reasons, and then when you go to court to try to fight back, when you find when some of the documents are ordered release, they never should have been withheld, there was no basis for the withholding, these are not

national security secrets. recently some fast and furious document's were released after a couple of years. the president had invoked executive privilege to keep them secret and there's nothing in most of them that i've seen that would justify executive privilege or any kind of privilege to withhold these from subpoena. documentsembarrassing to the administration but they certainly are public documents, as have been acknowledged by their release. that is improper use of executive privilege and improper use of withholdings and reactions of freedom of information law. host: have you seen a story on the networks? guest: i have not. there has been some good print printgood investigative work, on the misuse of the freedom of information act, not just this administration, but past ones as well. they have perverted the law that was intended to facilitate the release of public information into something that helps them obstruct and delay the information. the federal agencies have done

this, the administration has done this. the law is basically useless from the standpoint of a news basis. if you are try to get information out to the public on a timely basis, you can't give that appeared host up. host: milton's first in philadelphia, democratic caller. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. caller: happy holidays. i hope you will make my point. as far as you, sharyl attkisson, i think you are a right-wing person because you appear on fox could where was your administration of the bush and administration, especially when it came to the iraq war and of the monday -- and wmd's? i didn't see you do investigative reports of halliburton and these other things into motion ministers but you are going after the obama administration and i think you are biased. guest: thank you for your comment. i did investigate halliburton specifically contract fraud

under the bush and administration quite heavily so you must've missed that. i want an emmy award for investigating the bush administration's bait and switch on the tarp bailout program and many aspects of the bush administration. a lot of people pick up on my book more often recently -- my work more often recently and didn't bother to look at the history. maybe they read this information and propaganda that has been went out but i am certainly an equal opportunity journalist -- i've been called a liberal so many times in the past now and i tend to be called conservative now. i don't mind, anyway people want to call me. but if you read my research of my work in the past you might change your opinion, you might not. host: your recent stories have prompted people to call you a conservative. conservative outlets picked up your reporting. picked up your reporting on cdc numbers on ebola.

are you concerned when the heritage foundation invites you to talk or you appear with the heritage foundation that that solidifies for people their judgment of the? at all.ot i don't care how people choose to judge me anymore than people who appear on cnn or other outlets apparently care how they are judged. people say "i see you on fox." well, i have been on abc "this ,eek" and al jazeera and c-span but they like to talk about fox because the propaganda has been -- out to fulfilling ou fulfill a narrative. there are liberal or nonpartisan but they wantfox this narrative to be fulfilled that if i am on fox in must mean i am conservative come even though non-conservatives are on fox news. when you talk about recent stories i have done, that is not the whole story. i want in any award last year for investigating republican freshman fundraising and hypocrisy of republicans who

came to office saying they would change business in washington but we tracked them down to key largo where they were hobnobbing like old-time politicians with lobbyists and big donors. perfectly legal, yet a seeming contradiction to the thing that got them into office. i've maintained investigations on both sides of the aisle but when bush was in office, more of the investigations of government people would say that to that president and of course no more investigate -- of course now more investigations into government lead to president obama. host: who is they? say you are want to a conservative because if it's a story line. guest: primarily interests trying to protect the administration and certain democratic interest in making the use of bloggers such as media matters to print talking points, many of them false and incorrect. but they get picked up and put out into the lexicon of the daily talk and some people, if they don't do their own research

, may see those stories and may indeed think about that is true, which i don't blame them. that is part of the game. there is been a really strong and concerted propaganda effort metry to controversialize and paint me as a conservative or someone who has a vested interest so that people who don't listen to the facts on the stories, some of which i think are very important and have really important public implications. host: we will go to our line for republicans. al in rhode island. kudos tos. attkisson, you. i've got to tell you that such a lack of investigative journalism in this country, it is really disgusting. your problem -- cnbc and all these other channels -- is the secular lefties. they couldn't handle the stories you were putting out. they didn't want you to have the truth come out. that is really what the problem is. they controlled obama, obama does their bidding, that is who

put them in office. that is really what the story is about. here is your next book -- you've got a group of people who prosper and after they have that, it is power, and then it is control. they have control obama from start to finish, that is who is keeping him in office but you keep up the good work because you are really exceptional and thank you. host: all right, al. sharyl attkisson. guest: i don't think there was a question there but i hear his opinion. host: what you think about the relationship between the media and the media executives? you wrote about it in your book and the obama administration, the ties there. guest: i didn't really talk about it in the book but i'm aware in washington, d.c., many in the media have ties to government. i don't see that as the primary problem. exist andthose ties can be problematic and should be disclosed when they are relevant, but the reason i didn't write much about it is i don't think that is the issue.

i don't see it as the biggest problem. host: tucson, arizona, john, independent caller. caller: hi. the biggest problem i think you guys have is right here, right now, the amount of time you get people like me. you are willing to ask good ask why --willing to [indiscernible] ask of are going to operation mockingbird for the the 1960's --nce look at the symbol of hearst corporation -- host: john, what is your point? caller: let me finish, let me finish. there is a lot more to talk about that you won't talk about because you won't let me come on your show because you are afraid. host: phil in maryland. caller: hi, thanks for being on

the show, ms. attkisson. i do follow you or can i organize that you have had stories on both sides and that is helpful, but i think the recent writings and comments about and ghazi illustrated benghazi- about illustrate a problem. benghazi was heavily adjudicated by house republicans and an extensive report came out which more or less exonerated the obama administration. i think it speaks to the fact that these sorts of witnesses and folks that you were havealing in your writings not represented the general truths about that matter and i think it intensifies why some like me on the democratic side are skeptical of some of your work. guest: thank you. i have an entirely different interpretation of the report, as do the republican -- host: which report are we talking about? guest: house report on benghazi -- he is talking about the intelligence committee

report that came out recently, which the lead republican acknowledged is not any sort of exoneration or final word, that they look at a very tiny slice of the benghazi affair, confirming much of which i and others have reported, that there were some warning signs from all of not a specific time and date, but they were either ignored or not seen properly and more should have been done. he did not attempt to close the final word on many other issues come even though it has been mr. it is such -- misreported as such. in some cases it contradicted other witnesses that have testified behind closed doors -- for example, to the house armed services committee. in some cases it upheld other witnesses who have already testified that it is yet another report among many that sheds some light on the benghazi affair but as been spun propaganda-wise as some sort of exoneration or final word, and at least the republicans you oted say that is not the

case, but there has been a lot of misreporting about it and i understand why you might think that. piece of the a puzzle that the house selected benghazi committee that tries to put all this information together -- it will be a piece of the puzzle that they consider as they try to take all the contradictory, conflicting information. as far as i know, none of the information that has been me, by my sources, has been proven anything other than completely accurate, and usually was reported by those sources first before it was confirmed, sometimes months if not years later by others. and many of my sources are within the obama administration, so these certainly are not partisan republicans. in some cases they are lifelong democrats who felt really awful about the things that they saw and heard that night and step forward come sometimes at great peril to themselves and their careers, to tell what they saw as the truth. i reported a lot of that. as far as i know, all of my reporting stands 100%, and as you may know was nominated for an investigative and the award

and i'm very proud of it, so i will continue on the track. host: "the washington post" after the report came out had this editorial, "benghazi debunked." they point to this part of the report -- "there was neither a standdown order nor a denial of available air support and no american was left behind." asked mike rogers was about that, the republican, and he agreed there was contradictory information on that, and he says they went with the narrow slice of the people that they spoke to. we know from witnesses who were there that some say firsthand that they were told not to go -- whether the words "standdown" were sent or not, some people say yes, some people say no. there were several instances of people not allowed to do the job they were to do that night. again, they don't claim it is the final word but the press worked very hard to take this one report that is like many that have come about about benghazi and tried to make it the final word.

i'm not sure what it means, "benghazi debunked." the city of benghazi has been debunked? the idea that there was a controversy has been debunked? is true.hat this report confirmed that the spirit issues and problems that we previously knew that the administration had it denied initially. i think there is been a lot of spin about the report that is not quite accurate. special committee on benghazi, do you think that will be the final word? guest: i think that maybe the most complete picture. the problem with saying anything is the final word, to me, so many documents are being withheld by the government, so many areas of investigation have been been looked into. the intelligence committee, in veryew, these minis work hard in some cases to protect the interests of their committee, meaning the intelligence committee wants to preferably make the intelligence

community look as though they did their job. the house armed services committee, when they issued their findings and reports, they tend to make it look like the military did their job. everybody has got their own interests. the select committee will be a more well-rounded review of the conflicting information that is come out over the past couple of years, but with so much information missing, and so much time having lapsed between these attacks initially and the time of this investigation, i'm not sure anything will fairly be the final word. host: brenda is a republican in tallahassee, florida. caller: oh, yes, i just wanted to thank sharyl attkisson former boldness -- for her boldness and journalism. we appreciate people who can get out there and tell the truth. in her opinion, why is it that so many people that study journalism or graduate from up gettings end

into the news and becoming so far left? it is obvious in the media that they dominate right now. and that is my question. again, thank you very much for your boldness. guest: thank you. well, i'm not sure i see it quite the same way as you do. yes, i do think probably our more was liberals and conservatives, but most of my colleagues over time in my expense have worked very hard and successfully to keep their opinions and viewpoints out of their stories. but there are key gatekeepers who can work at any news organization in editorial positions that through their a publication or broadcast regardless of what reporters and producers on the ground produce and want to report. that has happened, in some cases perhaps increasingly so in the last couple years. i think there are some managers and journalists in the business

that either went to journalism school that didn't train about the importance of keeping your own viewpoints or preconceived notions out of your story or they didn't train through journalism at all. maybe they came up in politics or majored in things such as politics or current events and government and they got into the business, some of them, with the idea that they wanted to change people or make them think like they do. there are some reporters who believe they have the key to the right opinion on certain issues, and go about trying to prove that were to convince other people of their viewpoint, which is really not what journalists, news journalists should be doing. advocacy journalists, i suppose, can be doing that sort of thing. but most of the people i work with over the years at cbs and cnn and other places did not do that and did a very good job of keeping the personal opinions out of their stories. host: long beach, california. darrell is an independent. hi, darrell. good morning. caller: i know, cheryl, your

skills and abilities to reveal information probably our next to none. have you worked on about going into the propaganda station and what mr. kerry calls rt? you would be working with larry king, abby martin, and you would have been in road to doing an interview with mr. snowden. that is my comment. keep up the good work. guest: i have not talked to that particular news station but i have found a number that have allowed me to work on orphaned stories, and i'm seeking those outlets. fox: you were recently on talking about the cdc and ebola numbers. what did you find out? when ebola dropped off

the face of news coverage, it -- ande to suspect should not fall off altogether. i rely on sources to deal with infectious disease and some deal directly with the ebola crisis. they remain very much concerned. i spoke to cdc a couple of weeks ago and asked them how many were being people monitored when they come back from a country that is infected to make sure they do not have ebola, and at the time there cdc said cases the they were actively monitoring, but that seemed to me to be an important story, and when i asked where is the update on the website because cdc often will have a page for emerging and developing diseases and problems and they will update that

periodically, they said we're not putting this on the website. whenan call back and ask you want that update, and that said to me there has been a decision not to put up updates. panicking felt it was the public or it would be a better way to manage the news if the information was not so easily accessible. host: this is in "the washington post" this morning. there are sobering challenges to stop in the epidemic. thecdc director went to african countries & world of difference from his visit in august and september. saw a world of difference from his visit in august and september. people that are very much concerned concerns are

poorly how well or things are going in africa. as long as the epidemic is out bad, itol, surging, or puts us at increased risk, and they do not feel markedly safer today from that standpoint as to what is going on in west africa and they did a month or two ago. they are still very much on alert and it should be are no plates. the media should not hype the story, not scare people to death, but there is information that should be reported. host: indianapolis. our line for democrats. freddie. good morning. caller: good morning. please give me an opportunity to express what i have to say. it is very important. -- thathe word what your guest said. advocacy journalism. is an advocacys

journalism station. the reason i say that -- take a look at the demonstrations. fox news has their watchers believing al sharpton is the problem, or that black people follow al sharpton. community haslack said i am going out there because al sharpton directed me to. we asked sharpton to come and speak on our behalf and the reason being is because we know he has a big microphone. people will listen to him whether they believe him or not. people that are accusing sharpton and the followers of ,ox news or making statements black folks do not follow sharpton. we respond on our own. that is 1.i wanted to make.

there is a second point i wanted to make. are you still there? host: can you make it quick? caller: the second thing is regarding killing in black neighborhoods. black people are fully aware that black youth are killing one another in our neighborhoods. we are still not going to give the policeman the right to kill innocent black youth based on what troubled lack youth are doing. host: all right. i will leave it. cheryl atkinson, is there something there you want to ?eigh in on >> i cannot argue with his --guest: i cannot argue with his point. fox news certainly has advocacy on its network from time to time. it is not monolithic. i was on the media critic show and the fox news reporter

specifically said he did not , and i saidrpton the same thing, so not everything they say it along those lines, but he is probably right if he has heard some people expressed that, and i take his point about what he neighborhoodsck and i have not really been reporting on that. host: dd on twitter wants to know as investigative journalism and replaced by four-profit, salacious journalism? guest: in some instances, but those are separate things. there is some for profit journalism and some journalism that is designed as it might help and in florence -- it might interest in organization might have to please. then there is journalism that is done just because it appeals to

people's interests or it is something that might grab attention, not necessarily for the right reasons, but sometimes that is the case. host: in the book you write about some in the administration pleading with you to be reasonable. what is a reasonable journalist? guest: well, it depends on who you ask. the administration, in my view, based on my experience, thanks you are reasonable and a call and tell you a story is not a story and you agree with them, which is something they did quite often. they spent a lot of time, you can see from internal e-mails they tried to withhold, they spent a lot of time -- a lot of time trying to stop with a view as damaging reporting that because of incorrect or wrong, but because they do not want it out. reasonable reporters are those

that when they call and say this is not a story and hear his wife and they agree with them. reasonable -- what do reasonable reporters get in return? get a phone call and will be told about an initiative the government wants publicized or a viewpoint the government wants. i call that often propaganda. i do not think that is a great get, as we call it in the news, so i do not care if i am on the list or not, but i will tell you managers care. they want to get that phone call. and that is very limited news. a story the government would put out for free if nobody would reported, but they handed and it out like candy. much of ahink it is

reward because that is not the kind of reporting that i care to do anyway, putting out the line of a press release that the corporation of a government wants out. host: our line for republicans. gary. texas. you are on with sharyl attkisson . caller: i wondered if you learned anything more about the government hacking into your computer, and the mainstream media reports on north korea corporation, a big but they did not talk about you being hacked by our own government. finally, when the new congress takes over, will any of the investigative committees look into our own government hacking into your computer? i will listen to your thoughts. the first question is have we learned anything new -- yes. i have new information, but i'm

not prepared to talk about that today, but we have learned quite a bit through three forensic exams and a lot of hard work by people who have wanted to help out. hopefully more information about that for people that are interested will be forthcoming. there were people inside of cbs when i worked there that were in communication with me and were asking why weren't we as cbs doing this as a major story and a couple of them said it was bigger than watergate, wired we reporting on this -- why aren't we reporting on this ourselves that i do not have the answer. let's say whoever did the intrusion -- we do not even know who did it -- isn't it significant and outrageous that a journalist's personal and professional commuter were -- byed remotely that people that looked through the

benghazi file, the fast and furious photographs? i cannot explain why more people are not outraged but i agree that it seems to me there should be and should have been a bigger response from the press. long was the hacking or infiltration going on -- it was not just your computer, but your phone system as well -- your home phone? it is hard to tell. we know certain points where things were done, but we cannot necessarily tell where the first thing was done. date where we knew things happened, dates and times where we knew these remote intrusions were refreshed using a satellite terminal or a wi-fi from a ritz-carlton. we know the intruders, after i became aware of this, came in and try to erase their tracks. we have come to see this because

erasing tracks lee's tracks that can be -- leaves tracks that can be analyzed. are you paying for this out of your own pocket? the first examination was done by a confidential source as a favorite and the second was done by cbs news. the third is someone that i hired, a computer forensic expert that has continued to work to build on the debt of the other two have gotten. to releaseo you plan this information, what you discovered? to my i am deferring attorney. i am sure you -- sure he will have a plan. host: pursuing legal actions? guest: we are looking at legal actions, yes. host: what are they?

guest: i have to defer to him. host: timeline? guest: i do not have a timeline, but in the not-too-distant future there will be information he can release publicly or will want to release publicly. host: linda. virginia. caller: thank you, c-span. sharyl attkisson, i think you are wonderful. i do not know if she saw the press conference held by the president before he left for hawaii, and he began to address the news people this way. he said "i have a list of nice," and he said he would call on this person and then said you are naughty, i am not going to call on you. to me, this is the meaning to the press -- demeaning to the

press and i would take that and run with it because it not only shows is the integration of the press, but the arrogance he has adopted in the presidency. -- nancy nancy poulos pelosi said let's pass this bill , then read it, but i have not seen nsa or statement in "the wall street journal" or anything essay oren an statement in "the wall street journal" or anything that said let's look at nancy pelosi. she stood up in front of immigrants and said do not listen to them, you are welcome into this country. bring more. thing -- congress has criticized obama because he has not sat down with congressman and did what president johnson

did, have a meeting, may be have age rink together, and really understand -- drink together, and really understand where these people are coming from. he has not put himself in the place where he can get give and take. he is an arrogant man. i also want to say something about the two black men that served in congress. the gentleman that said the policeman that shot brown, more or less he should not be innocent-- hitting people. brown was not innocent. we have tapes of him running into a store and assaulting the owner. i would not call that a person who was not a criminal. host: a lot there. she did not mean to do men that served in congress. -- thank you for your

opinions. i do not have comments on two of your three points. i am not a political reporter. as far as the press conference, it is interesting as what i'm sure the president intended as a lighthearted exchange in a way revealed that illustrated how they view things and how they administer favors and information at the white house, probably not just this administration, but handing out goodies, as i have said in the past, to those that are nice, and retaliating against those who are naughty. and compton said the president had called reporters in, including her on two occasions, and used obscene language to discuss his displeasure with things the press was doing, and i feel that was inappropriate, not the language, per se, because i'm not naive enough to

think that talk does not go on all the time, but to act in a way where the reporters are subordinate to the whims and wishes of the administration, when in fact, my view is we are watchdogs of the federal government and administration and we are on equal footing in some respects. not in terms of stature, of course, we're not elected officials, but in terms of our goal to protect the public's interest, and watch out for that sort of thing. it strikes me when we have written letters to the white house in the past couple of years and pointed out that they have made things that raise constitutional concerns in their behavior toward the press. we have rejected many things i have done, but it is almost as though we the press are asking for a favor by the administration -- please abide by the constitution, do not treat us this way, but instead we should be treating ourselves as if we are on equal footing and demanding we reserve our

rights and be treated the way the constitution intends. we have made ourselves somewhat subordinate unnecessarily to the administration. host: you write about having a back-and-forth with one administration official where "he replied to me he has no intention of giving the answers you want guest: he was basically saying ati believe that was tommy the white house. i was insisting on answers to questions about public information, and i was continually stonewalled, so at

some point when i rewrote the questions and sent them, and reminded him they were outstanding, he said he would not answer them unless i took certain actions and i said i'm not required to take actions, you are required to give us information and i said we pay your salary. he wrote back and said "thank you for my paycheck." i said that is not the point. we expect information that is public to be turned over on request. in the past, officials have tried to control information -- in other words, we do not want to give this to you because we do not like how you will use it. they do not have that power and control. the law says so. that is what some freedom of information laws and state laws specifically say. it is not up to the entity to ask how it will be used. public information is public information and we should resist all the attempts to try to

control how we are going to use it or whether it is released based on what we plan to report. sarah in host: sterling, virginia. democratic calling. her on i wanted to ask if she has done investigative reporting on congress withholding funds for the upgrade of embassies around the world. this has been going on for the past 20, 30 years. we only have marine security guards inside of the embassy to protect it. rent-a-cop on the outside and that is something the state department has to deal with with the host country. every time people have gone from the state department, they have to go down to -- begging, and it started with helms asking for money to upgrade the security and that was a big story nobody bothered to investigate and thus

you have something like benghazi. on embassy in tel aviv sits a main street. it has no protection whatsoever, but they do not have the funds to move the embassy or upgrade anything at all. host: ok, sarah. we will have sharyl attkisson jump in. guest: i have seen reporting on that. it has been well-covered by some outlets. she is right about that as far as i can tell, but in benghazi it has been well established and administration officials have acknowledged it was not a matter of funding. in fact, some of the measures rejected by headquarters would not have caused the government anything, such as retaining the special military team, the security team that was offered at no expense to the state department for as long as they needed it. specialists, basically swat team terrorists specialist would have been there had they been allowed

to stay. it was no cost to the state department. they rejected that. in the case of benghazi, while she is correct that there have been shortfalls and our embassies that are not well protected and there have been complaints, i am not sure that was a key factor in benghazi. interestingly, it was a similar situation years ago in bombing that occurred in west africa, and some of the same people were in charge of the state department. patrick kennedy, others that were there at the time. some of the same mistakes were made about financial problems, and yet again, some offers of help had come from the military but were rejected at the time when one of the ambassadors said we are not well-protected. we need a new building. there are always funding questions and there will probably never be enough money to suit and satisfy every single diplomatic post around the world, so decisions have to be made and resources have to be meted out.

there were so many red flags about terrorism, including rights that occurred before the u.s. attack with specific warnings that the benghazi compound would be attacked and al qaeda was in town. it was common knowledge. the idea was not more money needed to be spent, but how did we miss warning signals? host: arizona. andy is watching. republican. caller: good morning. sharyl attkisson, i just finished your book. i think it is outstanding. everything you have done -- i think it is a shame what this administration has done to suffocate you. other point, the book out, hasdead in benghazi," why n't anyone asked who this

gentleman was that told him to stand down? we love you. keep up the great work. guest: i do not know about the bob person. do you? host: i do not. i do not know the reference either. you know the book? host: --guest: i may have, but i have not read that one. host: you write in your book the questions that you had. do many of those questions still remain and when the special committee finishes the work, it what questions do you hope they -- what questions do you hope they answer? guest: some of the questions remain, but new questions have arisen as more information comes out that conflicts previous information. i still would like to know what president obama did that night. we do not need to know every

step he took and every little word he uttered, but the lack of to tell us of them anything that happened overnight, the decisions the commander-in-chief made while americans were under attack on foreign soil -- there can be nothing i can think of that is more in the public interest, yet it has been shrouded in secrecy. it is an important request to answer. you made a request to white house photography to get pictures of where he was that night. was that granted? guest: no. we requested white house photos taken that night because if you know how the white house works, a photographer is omnipresent. he would have been there taking photographs of the president that night, so we asked for the pictures, and they are paid for with tax dollars, and they release them when they want the middle east. when theyoffice --

want them released. the photo office suddenly started referring us to a deputy press secretary, josh earnest, who is now press secretary, and they said he would have to approve it, and he would never return a call or e-mail. we would try to maintain communication with him or try to make munication with him over a long period of time, and you would not answer. we would go to the press office and say you have given us an impossible task, talking to someone who will not talk to us. you need to give us another route, and they would say you have to talk to josh earnest. that was a dead-end road. it is unacceptable. press officers work for the public. they are publicly paid to be responsive. those white house photos belong to the public in my view to the extent that they would not reveal national secrets.

to this day, they remain secret. i will be just insane whatever they shall. host: any other answers? guest: we still do not know they answers to the question about who decided to put out the anecdote about the youtube video knowing that they had concluded it was an act of terrorism and the video was not to blame. at one meeting was the idea distributed? whose brainchild was it? we know jay carney, the white house secretary, hillary clinton, president obama, they were all on the same page. there had to be some meeting where this idea was disseminated, and we still have little information about that. matt in michigan. independent color. caller: thank you for taking my call. a brief follow-up on the

benghazi investigation you did. there isn't a point once you discovered that your communications and computer had been monitored and hacked, that you thought seriously about dropping your investigation, and to this day do you ever fear what may happen to you in the future based on uncovering very sensitive information? thanks for taking my call. guest: no. i never thought about changing course. in fact, if anything, it makes me more determined, and i do not worry about my future or fate based on what i am doing. host: do you know if the hacking of your computers and tapping of your phone continues? guest: i have not had analysis done. i have not bothered to do it because what my forensics experts taught me was if people that are the sophisticated who did what they already did, if they want to get into your

computer system, there's nothing you can do to get them out. in the end, it is pointless, so i do not waste my time trying to figure all of that out. i just assume, kind of as i always did, that someone could get into your computer. i think most of us know that, whether it is your corporate bosses who have the right to get into your computer, or hackers -- you have to operate as if it is being watched. nevada.no, republican caller. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. -- her views on the lack of vetting obama when he first ran for president. the mainstream media, when sarah palin was announced as a vice president nominee, they dug in her trash, but when obama was announced, they did no vetting.

he had no experience in management. he never had a job. why didn't the american -- mainstream media that into some him inble degree -- vet some reasonable degree? guest: i am not challenging what you are saying, but i do not personally know there was no vetting. if we look, i'm sure there are some stories that might have looked into controversies in depth, but i think what he means is there were not as widespread of media coverage of the controversies like there might have been if a republican had the same controversies in his past, and he is probably right about that. i call that substitution gain in my book, and i cannot explain why that is the case, but many times when you look at how a topic or politicia