pataki in his seventh tier, 20th out of the 21 potential republican candidates ranked by larry sabido, just ahead of bob ehrich, and just behind peter king. in that category, the seventh tea is wanna buy a book category. guest: so promoting themselves essentially. pataki has been making some moves, but still, as sabido is pointed out, not considered a serious contender. host: rebecca berg is with the with the washington examiner." you can follow her on twitter @rebeccaberg. we appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: up next -- on the day that "the interview" is being released in limited release in american theaters, we'll talk about the influence of american culture and america's image abroad with author and humanities professor martha bayles. after that, we'll open up our

phones for our last half-hour of the show today to talk about public policy issues that you want to talk about. we'll be right back. >> sunday, "washington post" fact checker columnist on his biggest pinocchios of 2014 awards, given to politicians and political groups he believes made the biggest false claims this past year. >> democrats tend to get a little more upset at them, because i think they bought into the myth of the liberal media, and they kind of think that the media is on their side , whereas republicans, they firmly believe in the myth of the liberal media, so they kind of expect that they're going to

be, you know, -- a reporter for the "washington post" calling it, they're not going to be fair to me. i kind of think, i hope that over the last four years i've done enough back and forth, treated both parties with equal fervor that people have now come to, you know, grudgingly say, ok, you're someone we can do business with. i know that the senate majority p.a.c., which is affiliated with harry reid, they stopped answering my questions midway through the campaign season, because they felt they were not getting a fair shake from me. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." "washington journal" continues. host: martha bayles joins us now from boston, where she teaches at boston college.

she's also the author of a book that came out this year, "through a screen darkly: popular culture, public diplomacy, and america's image abroad." in this segment of the "washington journal," we'll be talking about that book and also want to hear what viewers think might be a good example of popular culture that should be shown abroad. of course, that question coming on the day that "the interview" is finally being released in limited capacity in some theaters, and ms. bayles, i want to start with "the interview". when you write your update on your book, what is the chapter on the sony hack and "the interview" going to look like? >> oh, it's going to be a very long chapter, i'm afraid, because it's a perfect storm of factors having to do with the way hollywood deals with overseas countries that are lucrative markets as opposed to overseas countries that are not lucrative markets. when i say that, i have in mind the contrast between north

korea, which hollywood loves to beat up on, and china, which hollywood avoids very scrupulously, avoids beating up on. that's just one example. it also brings in questions of freedom of expression and, you know, what kind of freedom of expression is most important, what kind is least important, what do americans think of as freedom of expression these days, issues of censorship, everyone in the united states is against censorship, but the film industry is marketing things overseas. n ways that cooperate with foreign censors quite on a daily basis. this is clear from the leaked emails from the sony corporation, sonny pictures. there's a lot of emails dealing with foreign film classification boards and what they do and do not like to see in films, and what they would and would not like to see in "the interview" in particular. so there's a whole bunch of

issues that are intertwined and that i think are still poorly understood by a lot of us americans and by most people in general. host: well, on that topic, should americans be surprised that north korea cares about this movie so much that they would risk further isolation in the international community? guest: should north korea care so much about this movie? host: should americans be surprised how much north korea cares about this movie? do americans understand just how much influence these kind of movies and popular culture has abroad? guest: i think americans tend to think that our influence of our -- that the influence of our popular culture is overall positive. in fact, i think we tend to think it's overwhelmingly positive, and that's because of our history. over the years during the cold war, american popular culture was seen as a voice of freedom.

you know, we have jazz and rock 'n' roll through the voice of america, and just informally through smuggling records and so forth into the soviet union and eastern europe. our shows and our programs are immensely popular around the world. so i think it's very difficult for americans to take a critical attitude or to understand some of the reaction to the overseas. it's kind of hard to sympathize with the north korean government's wound feelings, you know? i don't sympathize with their wounded feelings. my concerns are a little bit different. they have to do with the portrayal of america in the film and the portrayal of journalism in the film and the portrayal of how journalists work for the c.i.a., for example. this is, i think, a troubling message to send around the world at a time when independent journalism is greatly threatened. you know, these are kind of -- the impressions that are made

by our entertainment industry often provide fodder for authoritarian governments and for anti-american propagandists everywhere around the world. because we're so libertarian about our free expression, we don't like to hear those criticisms. i think the problem is real, and with these events, it's becoming more tangible and more visible to people. host: along with our viewer questions and comments for martha bayles in this segment of the "washington journal," we'd also love to hear your thoughts on what would be a good example of american popular culture that should be seen overseas. ur phone lines are open. and if you're outside the u.s. nd want to call in, it's 202-748-8003. ms. bayles, before we open up the phones to calls, america has seen rivals to its

political, its economic power, is there any rival right now to merican pop culture power? guest: well income many parts of the world, the indian film industry, known as bollywood, is a rival in terms of appeal to lots of audiences, appeal to mass audiences, in impoverished societies and traditional societies, because the values in bollywood movies are much more traditional and family-oriented than the values in hollywood movies. that doesn't mean bollywood makes more money than hollywood. not by a long shot. the country that i think aspires -- that i know aspires to rivalry with hollywood, and, in fact, i think aspires to replace hollywood one day, is, of course, china. china is the country that has the republican sources and the ambition to produce -- to create an entertainment industry that can rival the united states, and that's a whole complicated story about

how the chinese are dealing with our entertainment industry, the relations between beijing and hollywood is an unfolding tale with many chapters already, and it's extremely interesting to follow that. host: we'll go to the phones. doug is calling in from brookline, massachusetts, our line for democrats. doug, good morning. you're on with martha bayles. caller: hi, good morning. all this empty talk about freedom of expression and first amendment rights, if i can remember, when the state department at the behest of the saudi arabian government and an oil company, demanded that pbs not air "death of a princess" back in the 1980's. and i can also remember when c-span was scheduled to show a , came historian section under pressure from a certain section of the population, and

they folded leak a cheap suitcase. that's all i have to say. anyway, merry christmas, and good program. thanks. host: martha bayles, i'll let you respond. guest: well, i don't know whose empty talk the caller is referring to. there is a lot of empty talk about free expression in the sense that i think a lot of young americans in particular have extremely libertarian views about what, you know, there should be absolutely no restraint or no censorship of any kind in any medium. it's partly because they grew up with the internet, and it's partly because i think their experiences and the things they've learned about censorship are pretty negative. censorship, i'm innocent favor of censorship, because censors tend to be, you know, not real bright people who don't understand the arts, and censorship does not have a very good history. but that doesn't mean i'm against a little judgment and

prudence and self-restraint on the part of people who have a huge platform from which they speak, not only to the american public, but to the entire world. i think hollywood has been quite irresponsible in recent years about the way it portrays other countries, about the way it portrays other people, and mostly the way it portrays americans, in this incredibly sort of grotesquely negative light, i could go on about that. that's really the topic of the first half of my book. at the same time, our government, which used to do what was called public diplomacy, which was an attempt to speak to the population of our countries about american values, about american life, and about american policies, has been, you know, some shh runk down to a shadow of its former self. it's very difficult to do that in the modern media environment, the modern political environment. it's not propaganda when it's done right. but we have lost our way with that. at the same time, our export of

popular culture and entertainment has increased four-fold since the 1980's, and that's not counting piracy. so our de facto combar door to the world is our entertainment industry, and knowing our entertainment industry is -- many parts of it are quite irresponsible. they don't think about these things until it comes time to market their movie in a foreign market, and then they tend to be cooperative if it's a lucrative market. host: the potential impact of the "the interview," sony's original decision to pull the movie was the subject of lengthy remarks by the president and his end of year news conference last week. here's a bit about what he had to say on the subject. >> we cannot have a society in someplace dictator can start imposing censorship here in the united states. because if somebody is able to

intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary that they don't like. or news reports they don't like. or even worse, imagine if and ers and distributors others start engaging in self-censorship because they the send to offend sensibilities of somebody whose sense sibbles probably need to be offended. host: the comments of the president coming before the events of this week. here's the headline, controversial film will be distributing online, the move' began streaming on some sites wednesday, and, of course, about 300 theaters are planning christmas screenings today. martha bayles, your thoughts on the president's comments during

his press conference last week. guest: well, i think the president or his speech writers have not taken enough time to look at the way the entertainment industry actually works in the world. all you have to do is read some of the leaked sony emails and you see them negotiating with the board of film classification in a particular foreign country where their objections to the coarse and vulgar content of the film, their objections to the way it's showing the assassination of a foreign leader, and you see sony being quite cooperative and quite concerned hat the film not offend send sibblities. what minor country am i talking about? the united kingdom. england, britain. so that happens in the u.k. it happens in lots of other countries. and again, i raise the issue of china. china is not a huge, huge part

of the overseas box office right now because of all the restrictions and because there are not a lot of ancillary products that make money for hollywood from our films over there. but boy, hollywood would like get into that market, more than anything. and there's already a huge process -- they're undergoing a huge process of submitting scripts and casting decisions and content decisions to the state administration of radio film and television, the culture ministry, the media ministry in beijing, and there's a huge amount of cooperation with the chinese censors when co-productions that are being produced in china and for films that people want to see -- that hollywood wants to see released in china. the idea that some dictator someplace is imposing censorship or might be censorship, it's been going on for some time now, not just dictators, but foreign governments that have film classification boards. they don't say censorship

nowadays, but they say classification. and that's similar to our ratings. but we're the only country that amendment that unequivocally protects free speech. every other country anderts some kind of censorship or other. again, i'm not making a plug for censorship. the american tradition is one of self-restraint on the part of the entertainment industry, the old production code was actually put in place by the motion picture association, not by the government. it has some silly parts in it, which people like to make fun of. but the idea of self-censorship being a bad thing, we all censor ourselves every day. there's lots of things you can't say in our society without being pilloried for it. so i think the man who called from brookline, mass, was right. there's a lot of empty talk about free expression. when everyone anderts some kind of restraint or anything,

everyone exerts some kind of responsibility or the other, and the more public your utterance, the more restraint you have to exercise, and the more judgment you have to exercise. host: we're talking with martha bayles. her most recent book is "through a screen darkly: popular culture, public diplomacy, and america's image abroad." she also teaches at b.c., and here to take your questions and comments this morning for about the next 45 minutes or so. brad is up next, los angeles, california, our line for democrats. brad, good morning. caller: good morning. you know, i would like to see the movie about dennis rodman's visits to north korea. i think that was an interesting story, and maybe it humanized the north korean leader too much. i think what really bothers me about the whole freedom of speech issue over this is that it seems like the rand cooperation and the government had a lot more input into crafting the script, and especially the parts about him

being assassinated, and i think it's provocative, and i don't know if that's going to get us into the china market. host: brad, while we have you for a second, a question we asked our segment was what would be a good example of american popular culture that we should be showing abroad. what would be your choice? caller: well, i just said the dennis rodman story. isn't that more interesting than anything this movie is about? it's true. like i said, i think it humanizes him, and the north korean leader who is a fan of american movies. host: martha bayles, i'll let you jump in. guest: well, my first concern is isn't really humanizing kim jung you know. he's the inheritor of an extremely repressive dictatorship. if we're talking about freedom of speech and freedom of expression, we might look at what the practices of the north korean government on that score, which are the most,

probably the most repressive, it's the most closed society in the world, the most repressive of free speech. i think, you know, "the interview" also claims to humanize him in a way that will appeal to the american somewhat adolescent movie culture, which is to turn him into some kind of a party animal who smokes cigars and has a good time with these two guys before he gets his face blown off at the end. that's pretty much my understanding of the plot. the dennis rodman visit to north korea, i think there's a couple of documentary about the that. i'm very curious to see them. i haven't seen them. but again, my priority here is not humanizing a dictator. my priority is preserving some notion of free speech that includes free political speech in place where there is no such thing, where people do not have the power or the capacity or the ability to hold their government accountable, to hold powerful economic interests

accountable. that, you know, for all of america's problems, it's still a place where you can call up on a tv show like this and denounce the government. i can criticize president obama for his remarks. there are a lot of countries in the world where you can't do that. and i don't think americans understand that. there are certain kinds of free speech that are absolutely essential, and they include the ability to hold the powerful accountable for what they are doing to us, and they don't have that kind of freedom in north korea, and so i'm not concerned about humanizing that regime myself. host: let's go to woodstock, illinois, our line for independents. good morning. caller: excuse me, good morning. thank you. i want to present to you the concept that was already discussed early in the century, and that was the issue of round citizen king. many people considered that to be the best movie ever made,

"citizen kane," because it portrayed an individual who was based on william randolph hearst, who was extremely powerful. he was the head of a media organization. he was extremely wealthy. he suppressed the film. he would not allow it to be distributed. or son welles was a young man in his 20's, and he made this exceptional film. it should be viewed by everybody. fortunately, it was not colorized by turner. can i just say one thing about the word hero? i came across that quote, because i happen to turn c-span on early on the first day of this year, and the head of the hearst media organization at the time gave out the following quote, "i'm going modify it with one word," the word hero. he said his favorite quote was, "a hero" -- let me see what it

is, a hero is one who understands the responsibility that comes with freedom. i'm going to say comes instead of goes. that is a real hero, and we see those heros in everyday life. that is the only hero we should have. host: that was woodstock, illinois. martha bayles, as you answer the question, would love to get your thoughts, if you also would agree that citizen kane is the best movie of all time. guest: oh, i would not venture to say what is the best movie of all time. i have my favorites. citizen kane is not on my top five. it's an admirable film. it's like saying what's the best book of all time, or what's the best person you ever knew. if you are as fortunate as i am to have known many good books, many good films, i'm not going to -- i'm not doing a ranking right now. host: do you think citizen kane would be a good example of popular culture that should be

seen by those overseas who don't have much opinion about america or are still forming their opinion about america? guest: i think there was a time, not too long ago, during the cold war, when showing older films like that was quite effective, because people had so little access to film, you know, modern kind of film, but i think now, if you look at the youth audience around the world, they won't hold still for an old black and white hollywood movie. a few will, of course, the film buffs and the rare ones who are interested in that. but no, i don't think showing older hollywood films, no matter how good they are, you know, people talk about showing "high noon," you know, i don't think that's the way to go. i don't think that would grab audiences who are already watching the rest of our entertainment. host: blake subpoena next, alabama, our line for republicans. blake, good morning. caller: yes, want to ask your guest, since she's an author, she might shed some light on an

incident, in fact, i remember many years ago, there was an author who was in prison for writing a book, and i'm not talking about somebody who was in prison in saudi arabia or iran, this was -- i think he was an english history professor or teacher who wrote a book about the holocaust, and he was taken to court for writing whatever he had written in the book about holocaust. that's all he had done, written a book. he was charged with some kind of denial of holocaust, and taken to court, and he was in prison in austria. i wonder if your author can tell us a little bit more about who he was and whether he's still in prison just because he wrote a book. host: martha bayles? guest: i don't know the name of that author. i know that in austria, i know that in germany, and i believe that in austria, saying

positive things about the nazi party or the nazi era or even exhibiting nazi symbols insignia like the swastika is ctually illegal. i wouldn't be surprised if someone wrote a book in austria that he would be prosecuted for it. in the united states, that wouldn't happen because of our first amendment. host: i want to bounce this quote off of you from alyssa rosenberg. it was part of her column that she wrote for the "washington post" recently on the sony hack. she wrote, while i certainly worry that the scale of the incident will have a chilling effect on raunchy satire or even movie-going itself, i wonder if we're just offloading responsibility for our increasingly violent and polarized conversation about the media on to a convenient villain. do you think we are? guest: the villain would be

north korea? host: in that case, yes. guest: ah, ok. i admire his been rosenberg's stuff. i always read her when i can. she's written a lot of sharp reviews, sharper than the average these days. i take her seriously. i don't know if we're unloading -- i mean, we're unloading our own misgivings about the coarsening and the extreme violence in our entertainment, we're unloading that on to the north koreans. host: are there conversations we should be having that we're not having here just by, you know, blaming the attack on north korea and worrying about the email release from sony and what might be in those emails and what might not be in those conversations? guest: oh, i see, i see. well, i haven't read that piece by her. i would guess that what she's suggesting is it's kind of what i was indicating before, which is that we focus -- there is a tendency in hollywood to beat up on north korea. north korea has been a whipping

boy for north korea for -- north korea has been a whipping boy for hollywood for some time . there's a great example in 2012, there was a remake of an 0's lm from the 198 called "red dawn" from g.m.g. it was about a chinese invasion of the united states, which was fended off by a few brave high school students. the 1980's version the invasion frfs the soviet union. this invasion was from china. well, m.g.m. studios, somebody remembered that they had done a must havee a few years ago in the 1990's called "red corner" starring richard ger and he going out after the chinese criminal justice system as showing it to be extremely without due process and, you know, a star chamber kind of a trial f. you've ever seen "red corner," it's very anti-p.r.c. government, very anti-chinese government. m.g.m. was boycotted in china for several years after that

film. so, in 2012, somebody at m.g.m. remembered this history, and the movie "red dawn," this remake, they changed all the invading army from chinese to north koreans, because north koreans are convenient enemy to have in movies. number one, they don't have any lobby in the united states defending their image, which, of course, china's lobbyists are everywhere, and number two and more important, as somebody i know in l.a. put it, they don't buy our movies. north korea has 26 million people, and it's not any kind of a film market. there's really no money to be made in north korea, so hollywood is more than eager to use north koreans as villains. so, in that sense, alyssa rosenberg is right that we are offloading a lot of things on to north korea in many, many different ways. now, this does not fill my heart with sympathy for the north korean regime, as i say,

but i think it is a kind of evasion of things that we should be thinking about, a long list of things we should be thinking about. i guess i agree with her. host: the north korean regime taking their complaint about the movie to the united nations back in july, asking them to have u.s. authorities ban the movie. we ask our viewers what movies should be sent overseas, what pop culture movies should be en overseas, a few tweets, show them "wall street" and "network" so they know what they're up against. our twitter page also says the movies we need to make are historical documentaries. we'll be taking your thoughts on that as we continue talking with martha bayles. she wrote "through a screen darkly: popular culture, public diplomacy, and america's image abroad." tim is up next, clearwater, florida, our line for i understand -- our line for

independents. tim, good morning. caller: yeah, good morning. obviously i'm an american. my opinion of our culture is very intellectually close-mind and had politically correct. a good example is the north korea situation. i have no reason -- i have no reason to believe that what north korea is doing or not doing -- i know nothing about them. other than the fact that they are doing business with syria begs the which question -- why is hollywood targeting north korea? in the to this reported news media -- the codiscoverer of the dna helix. he is unable to find work because he made -- he can't find work now. wealthy man bought

his nobel prize for $4.8 million. this is what we are living with in the united states, when someone from russia buys the then gives it back so he can live. a closed live in society here. there is no discussion and debate on a whole range of issues. sure, i can caller: criticized government, the but no one is really hearing me. listen to your program? unless you are a large, major news network, you can't really get a hold of public opinion. host: i will let you jump in. guest: well, that is a complicated set of remarks. my first responses about this being a closed society. it is true, and i indicated before that there are taboo

subjects in our society. if you sound racist or sexist or homophobic and you are a or a public figure -- you will get immediately into quite a lot of trouble. but everything of society has its taboos. every single society has its moral no go zone. if you can find a human society where it is possibleto talk everything and everything freely and not offend everyone, i would like to -- i'm not sure to go there -- but i would like to know what society that is. because i don't think there is any such society. i just think we need to be conscious of water tables are, if we're going to -- of what our taboos are, and if you're going to violate a to be aaware of taboos. it would take about a week and

the no to get them into go zone -- you can't say that, can't say that -- we all have our areas where you feel you can't say that. an american society, you can negotiate these things. you can cross those lines, again, you can do it well, you could do a badly. penalty you pay -- maybe you have trouble finding a job, ostracized in your profession -- but in many, many other countries in the you cross a really big topics, you amiliar disappear for a very long time and you do not see your family for 20 years. so there's a difference there. i do not think we lived in a -- live in a closed society. and i forget what the other part of the question was. host: we have several other colors waiting for you. benjamin is up next. springfield, massachusetts on our line for democrats.

morning and thank you for taking my call. i want to talk about exporting american values to the rest of the world. sometimes, we have to think about whether or not glorifying or demeaning or making light possibility of the cia assassinating a world leader is something that we want the world to think that we do on a regular basis. that is my issue with the whole particular movie that was discussed earlier. guest: well, benjamin, i agree with you. i think the most troubling and aspect of discussed "the interview" is this image one, the clownish --

they are not really jealous, they are clownish talkshow guys, as i understand it. and the idea that they could be sexy, young a actress -- she is a wonderful actress, but i'm not sure what she is doing in this movie. i find that deeply troubling, find it deeply i troubling is because north korea is one of the places in the world -- and there are many are on the they increase -- where independent media are under attack. where journalists are being harassed. they are being imprisoned. there bring tortured. and they are being killed. because they want to bring an independent voice to hold powers accountable. this basic function of free speech that i spoke about earlier. this is happening all over the world. a lot of americans are pretty oblivious to that fact. in nearly every country of the

world, what is the charge leveled against them? it is that they are cia agents. that is always the reason. that is always why they are tortured and imprisoned and killed. now, there's a long history of the cia trying to recruit journalists. occasionally in wartime, it has happened. longtime of have a recruiting journalists. but because of our first tradition, this is a very front debate between the and the journalistic community. and it is a serious subject. it is serious because it is a big debate in our society. and because the cia is not in very good repute these days. way to go is not the about besmirching the cia, if that's what you want to do, you are also besmirching the journalists.

i mean, this is not what we want to say about jealous when they are risking their lives around the world -- about journalists when they are risking their lives around the world. reading your ed enhanced he interrogation report -- and part of the chapter that struck the tv show "24". and how that influence not americans think about torture,but how the world thinks america thinks about torture. guest: yes, i am glad you dealt so deeply into the book. i have a chapter on violent -- violence and special effects. and i get into the topic of torture. "24" was an extremely popular tv show worldwide. it has enormous distribution, both legitimate and pirated.

i traveled to 11 countries and over 300 people overseas and in washington and this country for this book, and say that this book is based on many, many interviews with many, many people around the world. it is not just my spontaneous opinion. heard overseas was was hugely popular -- but there were a lot of people very troubled by it because it does give the impression, american e, that intelligence agents -- the first thing they do when they capture somebody is torture them for information. the second thing that it conveys is that torture intelligence, e which i think is very dubious. of ewhere along the course the production of "24" -- i or nk it was in the fourth fifth season -- some people who

are training interrogators for the military -- i cannot recall officers are he now -- went and spoke to the producers of "24". they had a meeting, and they is d that this -- your show influencing our trainees in the direction of thinking that torture is the way to go. could you maybe put something in the show that counters that? and, you know, i think after that, they backed off the torture a little bit. the other thing i say about the ure is that back in early 2000's, there was a genre called torture porn -- movies like d "hostile", "captivity", and "saw" -- reveled in torture as a form of entertainment.

you went to the movies and watch people being slayed and skinned and tortured in all of extravagant ways - some of them sexual -- aand this was a short-lived genre film. in fact, i know some in the hollywood put the brakes on that. and that genre kind of disappeared after a couple of years. partly because it was beginning to flop at the box office. but if you call that self-censorship, i would call it a little bit of judgment. host: we have about 20 minutes left with martha bayles. we want to get to as many of your calls as you can. randy has been waiting in fredericksburg, virginia. our line for republicans. caller: good morning. studios ee with the pulling the movie. i think it was probably a knee-jerk reaction. i think they should have left

it up to the public. they could have just said, you to get ey, let's try this movie, and we will try to put it out anyway. that is my thoughts. host: did you want to respond? guest: i am not sure what movie he is referring to -- host: "the interview". my st: oh, yes, some of friends have been joking in los angeles that this is a publicity stunt to pump up the box office. if you look at the emails, you pictures was sony not really pleased with the film. and, you know, if we lived in a maybe l universe -- which we do -- maybe this is all a get people tunt to to go see the movie tomorrow.

i am just joking. i don't think it was a publicity stunt. so randy may have a point. if they didn't raise a fuss it may have flopped or not have had as much success in the box office. kind of thing -- it is the kind of thing you make a fuss about. unprecedented, really, to show the graphic, physical destruction of a -- of a world he is a even though dictator, and to show it on the screen and do it for laughs. i think that is unprecedented, and i am not surprised that a fuss over it. host: steven, our line for independents. caller: hello. i was just concerned, or interested about your opinion on the victoria newman call that was released to the ukrainian ambassador. misdirection t the

of the media, given the smoking gun for the u.s. involvement in the ukrainian overflow and continuing antagonism towards russia, is dangerous. you know, world peace and overall security for our own people. i think that our government needs to be put back into its place. you know, we need to prevent this, you know, sort of continued antagonism towards, you know, great powers. especially nuclear powers, i think has set a dangerous precedent and could lead us towards, you know, a cold war situation. host: martha bayles, several chapters in your book discussing u.s. russian relations. to if you can bring it up the ukrainian conflict and the influence of a popular culture and the news media, as well. -- st: oh, that is a large large pandora's box. i'm glad you asked that

question. well, the first thing i would our ion is that i think news media -- the deregulation media in erican news the 1980's under the reagan talking ration -- we're about the regulation -- i'm not sure it was a good idea. but it might have happened anyway because of the technology -- our information revolution that has occurred. i think the media, the news a kind of become circus. with the notable exception of programs like this. a lot a lot of polemics, about attacks, a lot about stuff pumped into the public realm that probably shouldn't be there. it is -- iit is kind of crazy right now. and responsible news reporting looks to a lot of people like effect of the past. so, we have our own problem

with the kind of journalism that holds powers accountable, journalism nd of that is serious, and journalism the really tries to expose excesses of government. we have our own problems with that. happening in the world is that authoritarian -- in particular standout in this -- they have copied all the of our media -- the polemical talkshows, the entertainment, the celebrity coverage. all the kind of fluff and fuss and bother that we have. other crazy, screaming arguments. they do all of that stuff. and they entertain the russian people and the russian speakers of the different audiences. is t they don't allow serious political reporting. what they don't allow his criticism of the kremlin and put his policy.

that is absolutely forbidden. and that is the nature of the russian media. they have copied all of our worst things, and have excluded what is most precious in our tradition of press freedom. brush and many other countries around the world -- so the worst of our media is the worst of their media. and the best of our media seems to be diminishing and power and importance around the world. i think that is very serious problem. i kind of agree to that extent. host: bob is up next on our line for democrats. yes, the issue of the north korean movie and then the unfolded where they have these threats and then they were going to pull it. and then they were going to release it in a limited fashion.

whole situation was no more of a matter of freedom for example, our government is a totalitarian that rush limbaugh claims. the freedom of speech that we are granted in our constitution means that our government will make us terminally disappear too black site. for example, if rush was going driveway in the morning to get his paper and a pulls up in renders him to a dungeon -- what is your question? caller: the dynamics of what sony was a matter of another freedom we hold so dear. she agrees with this, and that is the freedom of free enterprise. sony's right to run their business the way they see fit.

guest: i think sony's freedom to run the enterprise the way they see fit has not really been violated. does in its business as it -- this is sony pictures, relatively small division of the company based in hollywood -- sony pictures the hollywood studios do -- they make movies and try to market them around the world. the process of doing that, they make lots of compromises. they make all sorts of calculations. most of these calculations are based on how much money they are going to make. that is their number one priority. but they have to take into consideration what other government to say, what other bodies in other countries say, and so forth. you might not like it, but that is how they do business.

this is just a very visible example of a company doing that. i do not see it as a major departure from the custom. it is a country that usually doesn't say anything and gets beat up on -- that is north korea. it is not the only country to have done at. it is not the only group of foreign nationals to have done that. it is just kind of a shock to us to see north korea doing it. another headline recently to the u.s. and cuba looking change their long-standing relationship. relations a little warmer since the cold war. of k about the influence public diplomacy on america's image in cuba. guest: i don't think america has been doing very effective but ic diplomacy in cuba,

frankly, that is not something i feel very expert about. we have a broadcast that go into cuba. they use quite a lot of the budget for international broadcasting. when i say international all of the g, i mean channels they go overseas that by the government -- voice of america, radio free europe, radio free asia, there is an arabic tv and radio service, and there's one in cuba, and a longer spanish-language one throughout latin america. those channels going into cuba, i think, have been greatly criticized over the years. i think they have gotten a little better in recent years, but i do not think the audience in cuba is very large. i haven't looked into it recently. i think the audience is quite small, but that doesn't mean they don't have some influence.

that, i don't think i can say much about public diplomacy. i'm afraid i'm coming up a bit dry and i question. host: portland, maine is next. own question for you. frank, good morning. i think frank stepped away. waiting in to tim rochester, michigan on our line for democrats. tim, good morning. caller: good morning. know, to say that, you we export images all around the world. and certainly people in the see the same images. mentioned e earlier tom watson -- he has made some very racist statements about genetics and black folks. they had access to in other countries --

showing to black kids scoring score ever recorded -- if we had more information like that, people would it make stupid statements as he did. host: okay. go on to been in new in new york for our republicans. caller: i'm incredibly proud of for defending our rights, and how he can be so outspoken. of him, you oud know? is very e that it to know that -- it is very important to know the clear and ideological views of each country. where they all stand. and the market definition of know, the ry, you sales and the art. i think it is very important to know all these factors.

host: martha bayles, how much know about ericans the arts of other countries in the cultures of other countries? guest: well, that is a mixed question. i think through our huge number of immigrants from all around the world, we tend to be somewhat exposed to other countries. but i think that because we are exposed to other countries to have come rant here, we tend, on the whole, to think that the world likes us. and it always seems to come as a shock when we find out that there are people in the world who don't like us. and there are people in the world to don't want to come want to d who don't become americans. 95% of the human race is not american. i pointed that out to my students recently and they looked puzzled. one of them said, gee, it almost feels like 95% are americans. i think that's the way a lot of americans are. good reasons e is for that.

americans who have been but spent time overseas undergo a kind of transmission, i think. it happens quite often, and with young people it is happening more often. their eyes are opened, and they suddenly start thinking about these things. are all complex -- a country with many internal differences of race, background, and so forth. it is quite a lot to sort out for the average person. and so we are so busy sorting ourselves out that sometime we haven't got time to think about the rest of the world. but i think americans learn fast when they go overseas, and they learn fast when they meet people from overseas. but generally we tend to stay in our own bubble. host: it seems like a good time from your is passage mirror the fun house

images of america invaded by our popular culture are out there giving aid and comfort to those who would like to see our nation discredited. what could change, with self-awareness, is the capacity of individual americans to counter these distortions. the first step would be to listen to what others have to say about our popular culture. something you did on your travels in writing this book. guest: well, i certainly did. i learned a great deal from other people. i could have never written this book if i didn't do all that traveling and done all that interviewing overseas. in fact, i had to keep my the ical opinions out of book pretty much, and let people speak to me. host: we will try to get in just a couple more calls here with martha bayles. joseph is up next from north carolina on our line for independents. caller: good morning.

i am a georgia clean air inspector, and co2 is one and a half times heavier than air. i would like for these how ressives to explain they can float in the air greenhouse gas. since the catalytic converter comes out, what comes out of your tailpipe is water, nitrogen, and co2. wanted us to they achieve. that is why they wanted us to use machines on the gas tailpipes now -- bbecause they the us to see how clean air actually is. host: okay, not a discussion about a climate change, but we want to get as many callers as we can. martin is up next. our line for democrats. caller: happy christmas, c-span. what a tha, my dear,

wonderful -- what if, just what if sony -- kind of going down -- sony pictures is part of sony corporation. right now, sony is kind of going down on the state-of-the-art levels, inspires people buying sony equipment within the industry. this der if they're using as another platform to put more capital in part of -- in of sony part corporation that might possibly need all the help they can get. i have all the respect in the world for seth rogen, but this a whole new platform and it could just be a whole new way of marketing. when you think? host: martha bayles. guest: well, i made the joke earlier that some people in la are calling this a huge publicity marketing stunt. i think that is, you know, a

good joke. what is think that is going on. it is not really a platform, in my understanding of a platform. i have ow that -- and heard -- that sony corporation has actually been thinking about selling sony pictures. are some interested buyers. and the hem is cbs, china -- the alibaba in china has tion been expressing interest recently in purchasing sony pictures. but i am not giving into conspiracy theories, myself. i think the world is too big and too complicated for anyone to pull off such a conspiracy is that. but it is comforting to think that there's somebody out there all this to make happening -- conspiring to make all this happen.

host: martha bayles, the recent author of "through a screen darkly: popular culture, public diplomacy, and america's image abroad". thank you so much for joining from boston this morning. guest: my pleasure. merry christmas. host: same to you. we'll be right back. >> here are some of our find red programs you will this holiday weekend. pm urday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span, supreme court justice elena kagan. evening at 8:00 pm, glen kessler on his biggest pinocchio's of the year award. book tv, damon

root on the long-standing battle of supreme court. history tv" on n c-span3, saturday at 6:00 pm eastern on the civil war, discuss ns and authors president lincoln's 1864 reelection campaign. and at 4:00 pm, trial by fire. 1965 film that chronicles the battle of the bulge. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us, email us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues.