tv QA with Brooke Gladstone CSPAN July 9, 2017 8:00pm-9:02pm EDT
8:00 pm
theresa may takes questions from members of the house of commons. after that the british secretary of state for defense talks about u.s./british relations. ♪ this week on q&a, brooke gladstone discusses her book, the trouble with reality: a rumination on moral panic in our time. gladstone in your new book "the trouble with reality." i have to pull you with what you said. reality is more strictly than a pocket full of putting. this is the smallest book we
8:01 pm
have ever done on this program in 28 years. brooke: i can imagine, there are not books that are much smaller than that. host: what is it about? brooke: i call it a lumen nations because it is not even a complete argument. it is a summary of an argument. what it basically was was a response to the kind of incredible anxiety that people , my eastern elite cohort were feeling. really, numerically, i think more than half the country feels. i realize the rubble of destruct was so high that it really went beyond politics or a precedent. -- president. it as gin to the area of existential dread. i thought, i want to know why, this time it is not sold simple as just, it is donald trump and he just does not seem to know
8:02 pm
what he is doing. it seemed to be much deeper than that and that was my exploration. in this book i am taking people down the rabbit hole with me. is full of a lot of , aff, but why a short book dollars $.95, it is not expensive grade -- eight dollars $8.95, it iss -- not that expensive. brooke: wnyc's book agent, the station where i work just showed up in my office and that, people are terribly dish, we want something. i said, well, i will tell you -- right now it is close to the end of february. i will write this thing in two
8:03 pm
weeks if you promise to bring it out in two months. the world is changing so fast, i do want to process this. i want to set this task to myself and i want to see if i can come up with something, if not consulting, at least the can and anna mize the great -- anatomize this great engine of society. if you do find something, it is easier to manage. i wrote it in two weeks. they brought it out in two months, miraculously. it isshort because, dense. i went deep. my entire life is spent removing words from things. as the editor of my show "on the text andnd all the everything you hear is boiled down to its essence.
8:04 pm
i'm very, very grateful for the time that anybody spends listening to our show or reading this book. honestly there is not a word wasted in it. we traveled all through history. we go back as far as john milton, all the way to a happened a few months ago. hopefully you get from thism you have a sense of what happened and why you feel so bad about it and what you can do about it. -- on thisdo you say network we listen to all sides, to the person that lives in the right state -- red state that says "there they go again." she is not a conservative, she has no idea why we like this guy, what do you say to them? brooke: it is an absolutely fantastic question, honestly, i do not get asked it enough.
8:05 pm
i am utterly transparent in this book. i talked about the anxiety that is felt by the non-trump of voter. i talked about how he was and the foundational principles on which we all construct our independent spoke realities. how those fundamental principles were violated, broken, did not seem to work anymore creating ofs cosmic, primal screen distress. i will also argue that you cannot taste your individual world back together unless you know what is going on in the other world. that there is a highway of infinite realities. as many as are our americans, as many as there are human beings, and what we saw was a colossal smashup on that highway. what i would say to the trump voter is, you want to know what
8:06 pm
is really going on? delicateto go past the snowflake, they lost, get over it? you want to see what is really going on with us? asm somebody who has taken far a distance away from -- away as she can possibly get. i tried to go 1000 miles out. for arguing in the book people in my political cohort to do the same. -- i amo say, i am not a fan of journalist. i never edit to win the argument. we always invite people on who disagree with us. we are respectful and we give our time. i am also respect to the audience. here is where i stand. factor that in when you are listening to the conversation. this is an opportunity for people on both sides of the
8:07 pm
political argument to see why the nation is so divided. suggesting that we try to hear it. wem just suggesting that figure out what else is going on out there so that when we go back into our bubbles, which we are biologically wired to create, we will make them a little sturdier next time because we are much more aware of what is going on out there. i am not asking anybody to compromise their values or believes. i am asking them to open their eyes to other people so that you can figure out your place in this incident world. host: where did it start for brooke goldston? brooke: gladstone? host: there is reality out the window right now. brooke: it is not the first time. it is -- where did the anxiety start? host: no, where are you from
8:08 pm
originally? brooke: i am from long island. my parents did the various jobs lowish/middlestly class. my father switched jobs and we were doing well for a while and moved to a much bigger house. i am one of six siblings. he did terribly and we had to sell the house and moved to vermont. tripled the jewish population of moved towe move to -- in the northeast kingdom. i went to the university of vermont. my parents went from bankruptcy to bankruptcy and ended up incredibly happy in new mexico. host: how did you get back to new york city? brooke: i took the long way around. after vermont i moved to washington dc.
8:09 pm
i was there for 13 years and started out as the worst waitress the nash -- the capital has ever had. finally -- fired from every single job. a customer got me a job writing. this was the 1970's. he is sitting outside this deal right now. we were very young and i started writing on issues. he was working on the hill. from defense i went from job, to job, to job and it is a long story full of coincidences and happy chances. in radio, which is where i belonged. i was a theater major in college and i liked to write. it is a tremendously great medium for telling a story because it is so intimate. done the long have you
8:10 pm
radio show on debbie n.y.c., which you can hear all across the country. brooke: i have been doing that show since january of 2001. host: the gentleman you're talking about is sitting outside, your husband, what does he do? brooke: he has done many jobs. right now he writes on national security and foreign policy firstly. you from at to show person in 2003. he was amusing ourselves to death. i want to describe why you write about it. let's see what he looked like and talk back desktop like in 1988. -- and talk like in 1988. presidentst with from reagan.
8:11 pm
darwin allare run -- by itself. i find reagan, myself, appalling. history,tage in our that we would have chosen ill-informed, so and so inarticulate. us.vision produces brooke: right, he felt very pictures were pushing out words and that led .o a kind of simplicity it rendered us incapable of understanding complicated ideas. i did not entirely agree with all of his conclusions, of
8:12 pm
course he could not foresee what digital media would do, how it would change landscape, it is till in open question and we are still struggling with it. there was one thing he did see, and that was that we were getting fed tasty morsels of sugar at a much higher rate than we could have ever done it before. that was dangerous. -- what he did was he offered a contrast between two different dystopias. world.," and george or "1984." which is flying off the shelves. struggling with how we got to this place where we do not understand what is going on in our own country.
8:13 pm
i came across the introduction in the fabulous classic called amusing ourselves to death. there was the orwell, huxley contrast. host: i am going to ask you to read it. brooke: i think everybody knows in 1984 big brother comes and takes away everybody's .reedom something very different happens in "rave new world." a place is created where out of theis coped population. it is what postman said. befeared the truth would taken from us. huxley field the truth would be drowned in a rubble at -- irrelevance.
8:14 pm
huxley feared we would become a trivial culture. orwell feared we would become a -- culture. actually, i will skip down to 1984,here he says, in people are controlled i inflict pain pain. in "brave new world," byy are controlled inflicting pleasure. in short, orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. huxley feared that what we loved will ruin us. host: why did you use it? i set up, atse, the beginning of the book, our biological wiring. i wanted to show how we had evolved a culture that was designed to validate us and not to challenge us. certainly not to contradict us. it gave us the illusion that our realities were watertight, when really they were riddled with
8:15 pm
the weak spots and places that would crunch in. of collision, which happens periodically through history, and i talk about that, this kind of , or toon of realities being faced with the fact that thatreality is built on -- happens periodically and happens for the same reason. alone, because we do not see, because we embrace our blinders. this down, fake reality begins at home. those are your words. .rooke: that is right not just at your home, but in your head. we are wired to feel the way we do. you see it in endless numbers of studies. when we are faced with a contradiction from somebody we have never trusted to begin with, our reasoning centers light up in our brain.
8:16 pm
there was a great study that showed this. confronted with a lie , or misbehavior by a partisan by someone who your worldview in part -- requires you to embrace, you do not light up. you distressed centers light up. a place in your brain called the and to killer -- or the angular cingulate. back in the book to make sure what it was. until you figure out how to accommodate this unpleasant information, generally by lying to yourself, once you have managed to accomplish that, the interior cingulate comes down and gets a shot of dopamine direct to your pleasure center. youect -- precisely what get if you take cocaine. how do you resist? that how do you -- how do you
8:17 pm
resist that? how do you stand in the way of your reward if you consistently lie to yourself? life, or theyour last numbers of years have you thought told the truth in politics more often than not? you know, it is such a funny question and i will tell you why. i think maybe you have done this to trick me. i talked about what truth is in the book. the truth is not about facts. that is why fax do not check -- facts do not change people's minds. they have to be relevant and have to be consistent with the worldview people have or they are easy to reject. easy all the time for reasons that i describe in this low tone. us truth, for each of
8:18 pm
involves the weaving of the knowing of the fact of the seeing that the unknown and the ofeen is taking the facts the known and under teen and marinating them in our traditions and values to create seamless structure. that is what truth is. , whoally you are asking me is a politician that best reflects my reality? believe, of course i believe is the right reality. every single person watching this now understands in a general principle what i am saying. but, again, we are not wired to accept the fact that we, ourselves are susceptible to the same inns pulses -- impulses that i am describing. , all the time,
8:19 pm
edit my world. you are basically asking me who is the politician that i most admire, the one that best reflects my view of the world. right? host: i'm not sure i care that you had -- who u.n. meyer. brooke: but it is my truth. host: but you have a sense were your lifetime was telling you the truth or it -- truth. i have done a lot of research on the lies of president in the past. there are lots of them. i would just wondered from your standpoint. brooke: are you asking about a president? plea out of this? host: sure. with everything you have written, when have you believed in somebody? brooke: i guess when people risk
8:20 pm
things in order -- when they risk their political position in order to speak a hard truth, that is a sign to me that they are telling the truth and that they have skin in the game of truth. basically, i looked towards politician who have taken risks. i do not know whether there is some kind of amnesia, but i am desperately casting about for one in the u.s. i am sure they are out there, i just cannot name them. they are not in office anymore is what i would say. host: you have a letter from john adams to john taylor. i want to ask you about the first line of it. 17, 1814. remember, democracy never lasts long. you more than once in the book talk about democracy. johne: democracy is what
8:21 pm
adams is saying. he did not have a lot of true democracies to evaluate from. ,hat he firmly believe is that when the people take the system in their own hand, they are likely, as the greediest most terrible monarch's but -- to smother themselves and the good in the world. he did not have a real belief the way that jefferson did. that wisdom would always prevail. that a truth is putting the same room for falsehood. truth will emerge victorious. jefferson believed that, that is why we have a first amendment, which is quite unusual here it perhaps, unique in the world. john adams, alexander hamilton did not have that in kind of humanity. they wanted the structure to work, but they also knew that
8:22 pm
democracy is just a machine. it is a template. it is a process. the success of the machine depends on its operators. if you have people who are listening to their better angels, who have values and principles and interests in seeing the machine work, interests that are greater than their own personal interests, it will always work for you. we are just human beings subject to the same frailties. if the wrong people get hold of those, democracy will not a bus. host: -- will not save us. host: i am scattering through the process to get you to talk about these people. who was hannah? i will show some video. brooke: she was a remarkable social theorist and historian
8:23 pm
who watched with the keenest eye happened in the run-up to hitler's assumption of power in germany? .nd also stalin's she picked out, very carefully, not just what they did and anonymize that, but to whom they did it and how they did it, and why they responded. it is always a little nerve-racking. those of us who have been watching, even in this brief period of the trump presidency to use hannah to offer and allergies. that suggests that trump is hitler's or stalin, or his followers or nazis. i am simply not saying that. what i am simply saying is that
8:24 pm
a population in distress, that has been lied to so often, willed so continuously respond similarly to someone who comes up with a view of the world, a reality that seems to include them, to reflect them, to validate them and to redeem them. whitethis is a black and video that comes from german television back in 1964. she speaks german. there are subtitles. i want to point out so the audience can be prepared to read the subtitles and we will come back to it. [speaking german]
8:25 pm
host: any reaction to what she just said there and how does it fit in with -- what was your thesis beyond what you just told us for using her in the book? it shows how close she was to what was going on there. there already was a very powerful anti-semitic tide. in the wake of the first world war, the germans did not want to
8:26 pm
believe that they had lost militarily because they just lost. there was aame that stab in the back. the jews had served in the military, but the jews that lived in the country have betrayed their enemies and that is why they lost. somebody like her could see that tide rising. she saw a great view of the side. she, in the origins of totalitarianism, we are not focusing on the victims, but on those who thought they would benefit from blowing the current oftem up and getting some what they thought was their birthright. something they thought they felt they had lost. and to change the direction of the future where they would no longer be the winners and
8:27 pm
beneficiaries of the system. to move it that. germany suffered horribly in the wake of world war i. the impetus to begin world war ii. which is why after world war ii we had a marshall plan. we would not make that mistake again. learned one mistake we from, which was a glorious thing and ray are in our history. rare in our history. she saw that hitler's could say whatever he wanted to these people because they needed an explanation for the struggles they have had to endure. they needed hope for a new direction. much of the rhetoric was almost entirely the same. host: let me read back to what you wrote. not break the law,
8:28 pm
he clearly was proud of outsmarting it. ducking taxes, greasing politicians and much more. supporters praise this as true telling, which it was. the system was rigged but he knew how to game it and now he would game it for us." , "whichn to say explains why so many of us are deal -- still reeling." brooke: we always thought that if somebody behaved badly, even if they did not rake the law, they would lose in the court of public opinion. look what happened to the republicans. something trump did iss john mccain for having a prisoner of war. i like people who don't get captured he said. or diss the nation to the south, they send us their rapist and their criminals. the access hollywood tape, for
8:29 pm
crying out loud. when does this guy stop getting a free pass? thatdo than norms, basically keep a civilized, that uphold ourze us, values that we can share, even if we don't share political policies, wind is that kick in? and it did not, hence the distress. i think it comes from all quarters, not just liberal democratic ones. host: what did you to give hillary clinton? brooke: i thought she was a problematic candidate. i thought she was a groundbreaking figure in many respects. but in breaking background, to be honest with you, i think that she was -- i don't want to use the word traumatized, but she was so affected by her savage
8:30 pm
>> beginning in the arkansas state house, every time she tried to exercise her intellect, to use her experience and applaud her values, all of which i thought were exemplary she became a hidden character. and duck andide mp is people believe tru authentic, they believe hillary is fake. i believe she has put too much faith and too many campaign to the same people. her past experience in breaking so many barriers rendered her incapable of reading this moment. why do you think the people
8:31 pm
who do not like her thought she was fake? i don't think she live any more than other politicians but she was evasive in a particular way. she would offer explanations. trump does the same thing to be sure but he was not forced to be so polished. he could be rude and crude and that would be well received. anyone who tried to do that is immediately condemn -- any woman who tried to do that was immediately condemned. woman faces tremendous challenges and so does an inauthentic woman. walk a hybrid
8:32 pm
that is so fine -- typerope that is so fine, it is hard to keep your balance. him on ainterviewed "demagogue." leader.agogue is a mass i borrow elements from an 1838 --ay by jane seymour cooper james fennimore cooper. it is identified as a man of the people, they trigger great emotional reactions from the people. they use of those emotional reactions for personal or political benefit.
8:33 pm
they didn't or break established rules of governments or laws. host: what's the difference between barack obama and donald trump when thinking of a demagogue? >> any successful politician has to incorporate several demagogue principles. do yoution is how uses use them. saying truck with a demagogue -- trump was a demagogue. but when he started identifying heh the masses in a way that did, in sincerely for his own material gain that he had to
8:34 pm
turn into this demagogue camp with regard to trump. he is a politician himself ap. he knows if you cannot engage in motion, you cannot get elected but it is to what end and how. way thatto do it in a gives basically -- you have to say a series of lies. him it is all about manipulation manipulation.bout why is it so scary? thinkprogress, who explains why it is important.
8:35 pm
give people the idea there is no reality to be known, it is simply an alternative fact, some information curse you, some doesn't appear to-- some information occurs to you, the truth is a liar, don't think you have any obligation to believe the engines of accountability. the endthat signals of of democracy. it depends on negotiating from a ofler fact -- a pool facts that you agree is t rue. truth is an arbitrary, personal decision there is no common ground to be reached, no
8:36 pm
incentive to look for and that is opening the door to the rule of the jungle. host: i mentioned i had done some research on what other presidents had said and i want to ask you the difference. this is an article that on other" put together presidents that did not tell the truth. 1940, franklinin roosevelt surprised his speechwriter by telling a boston audience your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars. at the are offered, if we are attacked, it is no longer a --roosevelt offered,
8:37 pm
if we are attacked, it will no longer be a foreign war. woodrow wilson did the same thing. wrote, i other book i spend a long time on wars and war coverage. lies of our the politicians and leaders become truly heinous. let's talk about the run-up to the iraq war. lies.single president if you want to ask me what is the difference between those ysys and trial, -- those gu and trump, i thought about it. generally when our politicians lie they do it to achieve a policy in.
8:38 pm
-- a policy end. war, ad up to the iraq combination of wishful thinking that iraqated a idea had weapons of mass instruction and it was a matter of -- massive destruction and it was a matter of self-defense to attack them. own andeated his rumsfeld a intelligence agency where they tear effect among there is ideas to create a consistent reality that would drive a policy they wanted. there is no consistency in trial. --trump. he doesn't feel he needs it.
8:39 pm
he wants to assert power over itself, over reality itself, to say it does not exist, everyone has an agenda. accountability, the media, are only special interest, they are enemies of the people, they have an agenda and it is not your agenda. here you say they lie on an outcome on policy, here is a former president talking about it. >> isil say it again and again and again. it again andy again. your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign war. is by 1961, i make
8:40 pm
are we going to be ahead of them, i'm not sure we are. >> the use of weapons against united states ships have today required me to order the military forces of the united states to take action in reply. >> i'm going to say this again, i did not have sexual relations linsky.t woman, miss >> we will keep this promise to the american people, if you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor. if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan. >> when richard nixon said he was running for president, he said i have a figure plan to win the war.
8:41 pm
what have we gotten as a result in our society today with all these presidents telling us untruths. >> there is not a society on thingshere leaders say that are entirely true. goal is to make america work better. suspected that the kinds of insurance plans that people had would go away, not be outlawed by the bill but market those plans cause to become unavailable or their doctors might drop out of the program, he did not say so. he likely knew that was a consequence but it certainly wasn't in the bill. he created an environment where that could happen. the missle gap. that he maycall
8:42 pm
have inherited some bad information from his leaders. he may not have actively lied about it. jfk. there is a higher purpose. i'm not excusing that, by the way. i'm absolutely not. there seems to be no purpose except to further our president's view of himself. a vision.o narrow inrything he said recently the wake of pulling out of the paris accords. he said i'm not prepared, i am for pittsburgh. pittsburgh said we are not a coal mining city anymore. they're only 50,000 people who
8:43 pm
actually work in coal. more people work at whole foods. it doesn't matter. andwords that can shift do with thehing to overall idea, the policy, the principal, it is just a chaos of the mind. city --u live in your in new york city? >> i live in brooklyn. has there been a time since donald trump was elected where you found yourself among your friends and they have the same intensity that you have in this book and say they cannot figure this out. you to write drove this thing, the people can understand why we feel this way.
8:44 pm
>> have i felt that way, have i felt that from other people? even more than i have felt it from myself. i tend to take a long historical view and i am of fundamental believe that whatever of essence in the next few years, the ensues-- whatever mess in the next few years, the public will survive. where did i hear distress? everywhere. i have a regular game i play with a friend in boston. "words with friends". the day after the election she wrote in the chat box, i just want to die. place,as not a single you could not walk out -- block
8:45 pm
out the sound of terror if you had filled your place with tape and found sound blotting fiberglass. it was a hum. the city was on red alert. used to its getting but that sense of stress does not abate because at some point it is not about trump, it is about this ideational principles -- those foundational principles . host: it is called "the trouble with reality." but you mentioned --who is she? >> she is a journalist who grew
8:46 pm
up in russia and she writes regularly for the "new york review of books." her insight has been stunning. when the rest of the media said it was not possible he could win, she said prepare yourself for his victory. then she accused the rest of the press corps as having a tremendous lack of imagination. may, this is what she said about npr. is that thergument definition of lie involved intent. npr does not have exclusive information on trump's intent.
8:47 pm
misstatement, takes a lack of intent and the thing is words exist in time. suggests asstatement similar -- a singular occurrence. the word misstatement apply to trump is actually a lie. host: what do you think? brilliant and's absolutely right. national public radio is taking a very narrow view statement by statement by statement. that the entire canon and endlessly generating engine of trump misdirection, of intentendacity has an
8:48 pm
and the intent is to cast doubt on the ability to ever know what is true. to take control of reality itself. ost: you write, if you think i am cracking wise to make a point, you are mistaken. >> right and then i explain inconceivable in that i'm not wired to conceive it. that ultimately is is the challenge.
8:49 pm
because i was admitting that i believe what i believe and i do not understand what they believe create awant to reality that will hold up under happy and will not leave nation and all of their realities in distress then we have to understand what other people believe because it is the coalition of their worldview and that hast -- and ours created all of this flying to bring or waiting for some great waiting forbris or a wind to blow it away. it will beaiting, for a long time.
8:50 pm
reactiont has been the to your book? >> i have not been trashed for think it is because people who think public radio is biased anyway, they are going to sigh. do i go screaming against the wind when breitbart says something outrageous or alex jones at info wars declared we are all being -- expectednot, because i and maybe that is why the reaction i hear is all positive because of the people who expect they be full of crap, would not bother wasting very same set -- wasting their ink saying so.
8:51 pm
clean breathest, of it and bring in my cohort and say we have to look outside of our bubbles if we want to feel comfortable in this world again. t: in the commercial mass media, have they been taking a more aggressive approach to donald trump than i have ever seen? is the firstmp person to break the norms, the had, thisthe media style of objectivity, walter cronkite, the man from the cloud style who would never express an opinion work in a consensus country. -- up still the time that until the time of the creation
8:52 pm
of television, media got cheaper and cheaper and you could make money with smaller and smaller audiences. that whole process reversed itself when television came. it came at a time when the country was in existential fear of the atom bomb and the russians. airwaves were a limited resource, they had to deal with the government. is that we no longer have, equal time and so forth. reagan andt away by it opened up the way to am radio with rush limbaugh a creative fox news ultimately. it was also a time when you center and if you try to talk to the people on the margins, it would turn off all of your audience.
8:53 pm
you never saw people with accents, people of color, radio the 2r more democratic in 50's andtv was in the 60's. suddenly there was a new technology that made everything cheap again. the internet. the cold war was over. this change by the media was inevitable in some way because of this collision of politics and culture but also on a more fundamental scale, on a cultural level, trump says i will not accept what your role is, media, in our democracy.
8:54 pm
i will not concede that you have a right to information, i will not concede that your mission is timenvey information. i-93 you three times. as jack shafer of political told me, they are like a hill of ants, if youf red walk around them, it will be ok, if you kick them, they will be all over you. the media believes they are relevant and the fate of the nation will depend on what they do. we know the media is incredibly polarized but there is a possibility thethey may.
8:55 pm
there is a possibility facts may have meaning again. them -- conceptualizing context utilizing the. making those facts matter, but they have a job now. pin the besthad to media organization in the united states, where you get the most information, what would you say? >> that is not simply possible right now. one thing that every american who wants to understand how the world is moving ms. is unique to get your information from a wide variety of sources. host: where do you go? places that are
8:56 pm
not in love with trump, but have policies that mainstream republicans would like to see acted on. atike those policies but least we can share a cultural is normal,what civil behavior. it is a place to begin. host: what would be your definition of journalism today? >> i don't think the role of journalism has changed. i don't think it is the role of journalists to carry a flag in the vanguard of the counterrevolution. it is the role of the journalist to tell us what is going on where we are not, to explain why that is of relevance to you, to
8:57 pm
lay out the facts, to be honest and accurate. i don't think you have to be objective, you simply have to be fair. host: last question, we talked about your husband, do you have kids. >> yes. twins. in brooklyn, one lives in los angeles. oth are engaged in various types of volunteer work. they contribute to causes they care about. in other words, they show up. everybody who is worried about the direction of
8:58 pm
the country, no matter where you stand, i think it was whose everybody to show up -- behooves up.ybody to show book, "the trouble with reality: a real nation in moral panic in our time." the author is brooke gladstone. >> thank you. ♪ ♪ four free transcripts or to give us your comment about this program, visit us at q&a.org. our programs are also available
8:59 pm
on c-span podcast. ♪ announcer: if you like this q&a with brooke gladstone, here are some others you might enjoy. his book, "the making of donald we speak with david kay johnson. bookaureen dowd, on her " a year of living dangerously." you can find those interviews online at c-span.org. monday night on the communicators, -- fast, that'sabits something i never thought i
9:00 pm
would see in my career, in my lifetime. fast, it isr house really, really exciting. then cih president on what network will look like for consumers. talked about broadband in rural areas and the recent spectrum auctions. she is interviewed by the pill" technology -- why the politico technology reporter. >> how do carriers make a return? it has contributed 500 billion to our economy. one out of every hundred persons is going to have a 5g job. we have to meet on spectrum, we have to get a pipeline and we have to get this infrastructure right because as we rolled we need to build 300,000 small cell sites in the next 10 years.
9:01 pm
it looks like a pizza box, it is small and it is going to be attached to everything. traffic lights, streetlights, sides of building, but we really need and this is important, we need an infrastructure that rethinks how we site. announcer: watch the communicators at a history on c-span2. this past week at the british house of commons, prime minister theresa may was asked about the u.k. role in pay increases for public filter employee --public-sector employees.
60 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on