so one out of every hurn person is going to have a 5-g job. only if we get it right. we've got to get this infrastructure right because as we roll forward, we need to build 300,000 small-cell sites in the next few years. what a small cell looks like is maybe a pizza box. it's small and it's going to be attached to everything because these are going to be much more dense networks. they're going to be on traffic lights and street lights. so what we really need, we need an infrastructure that rethinks how we cite fight. next, q&a. then "washington journal" is live with your phone calls and a look at today's headlines.

♪ >> this week on "q&a," brooke gladstone discusses her book, "the trouble with reality: a rumination on moral panic in our time." >> brooke gladstone in your new book "the trouble with reality." i have to quote you with what you said. reality is more strictly than a pocket full of putting. this is the smallest book we 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 in my cohort, 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 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 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.

host: it is full of a lot of stuff, but why a short book, a $8.95, it is 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 what -- right now it is close to the end of february. i will write this thing in two 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 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 is short because, it is dense. i went deep. my entire life is spent removing words from things. as the editor of my show "on the media," and all the text and everything you hear is boiled down to its essence. 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. host: what do you say -- on this network we listen to all sides, to the person that lives in the 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. 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 perceived, and the foundational

principles on which we all construct our independent bespoke realities. how those fundamental principles were violated, broken, did not seem to work anymore creating this cosmic, primal screen of distress. i will also argue that you cannot paste 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 is really going on?

you want to go past the delicate snowflake, they lost, get over it? you want to see what is really going on with us? from somebody who has taken as far a distance away as she can possibly get. i tried to go 1000 miles out. i am arguing in the book for people in my political cohort to do the same. i want to say, i am not -- i am a fan 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 respectful 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 political argument to see why the nation is so divided. i am not even suggesting that we try to heal it.

i am just suggesting that we 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. where did the anxiety start? host: no, where are you from originally? brooke: i am from long island. my parents did the various jobs and we were mostly lowish/middle 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 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.

i was there for 13 years and started out as the worst waitress the capital has ever had. 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. then i ended up 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. host: how long have you done the

radio show on wnyc, 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. host: i want to show you from a person in 2003. neil postman. he wrote " 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. >> you start with presidents from reagan. it refutes darwin all by itself. i find reagan, myself,

appalling. at this stage in our history, that we would have chosen someone who is so ill-informed, and so inarticulate. television produces us. brooke: right, he felt very strongly that pictures were pushing out words and that led to a kind of simplicity. it rendered us incapable of understanding complicated ideas. i did not entirely agree with all of his conclusions, of 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. he liked -- what he did was he offered a contrast between two different dystopias. "brave new world," and george or -- george orwell's "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. 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 that, in 1984 big brother comes and takes away everybody's freedom. something very different happens in "brave new world." a place is created where compliance is coaxed out of the population. it is what postman said. he feared the truth would be taken from us. huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a rubble at -- irrelevance. huxley feared we would become a trivial culture. orwell feared we would become a captured culture. actually, i will skip down to

here where he says, in 1984, people are controlled i inflict pain pain. in "brave new world," they are controlled by 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? brooke: because, i set up, at 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 the weak spots and places that would crunch in. that this kind of collision, which happens periodically through history, and i talk about that, this kind of collision of realities, or to

being faced with the fact that your reality is built on -- that happens periodically and happens for the same reason. because we are alone, because we do not see, because we embrace our blinders. host: i wrote this down, fake reality begins at home. those are your words. brooke: 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. there was a great study that showed this. if you are 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 angular cingulate. i would go 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 anterior cingulate comes down and gets a shot of dopamine direct to your pleasure center. precisely what you get if you take cocaine. how do you resist? how do you stand in the way of your reward if you consistently lie to yourself? host: who in your life, or the last numbers of years have you thought told the truth in

politics more often than not? brooke: 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 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. but truth, for each of us involves the weaving of the fact of the seeing that the unknown and the unseen is taking

the facts of the known and under and marinating them in our traditions and values to create seamless structure. that is what truth is. basically you are asking me, who is a politician that best reflects my reality? which i 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 impulses that i am describing. i am and i do, all the time, 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 admire them. 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? can i plead out of this? host: sure. with everything you have written, when have you believed in somebody? brooke: i guess when people risk 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. december 17, 1814. remember, democracy never lasts long. you more than once in the book talk about democracy. brooke: democracy is what john adams is saying. he did not have a lot of true democracies to evaluate from. what 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 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. -- 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 who watched with the keenest eye imaginable what happened in the run-up to hitler's assumption of power in germany? and also stalin's.

she picked out, very carefully, not just what they did and anatomize 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 -- to offer analogies. 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 a population in distress, that has been lied to so often, ignored so continuously will 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. host: this is a black and white 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] 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? brooke: 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 believe that they had lost militarily because they just lost. the theory came that there was a 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 system up and getting some of 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 beneficiaries of the system. to move it back. germany suffered horribly in the wake of world war i. giving rise to 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. that was one mistake we learned from, which was a glorious thing and 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. "if trump did not break the law, 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."

you go on to say, "which explains why so many of us are still reeling." brooke: we always thought that if somebody behaved badly, even if they did not break the law, they would lose in the court of public opinion. look what happened to the republicans. every time trump did something like -- diss john mccain for having been 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 crying out loud. when does this guy stop getting a free pass? when do the norms, that

basically keep a civilized, that help organize us, uphold our 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 think of 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 treatment in her early years. beginning in the arkansas state house or governors mansion. 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 if you hide and duck and deny, people believe trump is 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 who do not like her thought she was fake?

>> i don't think she lied 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. any woman who tried to do that was immediately condemned. an authentic woman faces tremendous challenges and so does an inauthentic woman. you have to walk a hybrid that is so -- typerope that is so fine, it is hard to keep your balance. host: we interviewed him on a book called "demagogue."

the mayor of charlottesville, virginia. >> a demagogue is a mass leader. i borrow elements from an 1838 essay by 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. they 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 demagogic principles. the question is how do you use them. he resisted saying trump was a demagogue. but when he started identifying with the masses in a way that he did, insincerely for his own material gain that he had to turn into this demagogue camp with regard to trump. he is a politician himself. he knows if you cannot engage in

motion, you cannot get elected but it is to what end and how. you have to do it in a way that gives basically -- you have to say a series of lies. you almost never tell the truth. it is all about manipulation. why is it so scary? i turned to thinkprogress, who explains why it is important. if you are constantly throwing fake realities at people -- in fact if you give people the idea , there is no reality to be known, it is simply an alternative fact, some

information serves you, the truth is a liar. pick what you want. don't think you have any obligation to pay attention. don't believe the engines of accountability. he said that signals of the end of democracy. it depends on negotiating from a pool of facts that you agree is true. but when truth is an arbitrary, personal decision there is no common ground to be reached, no 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 "politico" put together on other presidents that did not tell the truth. in many cases, in 1940, franklin roosevelt surprised his speechwriter by telling a boston audience your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars. except out the phrase -- in the case of an attack. --roosevelt offered, if we are attacked, it will no longer be a foreign war. woodrow wilson did the same thing. lyndon johnson did the same thing. >> in the other book i wrote, i

spend a long time on wars and war coverage. that is when the lies of our politicians and leaders become truly heinous. let's talk about the run-up to the iraq war. every single president lies. if you want to ask me what is the difference between those guys and trump, i thought about it. generally when our politicians lie they do it to achieve a policy end. the lies are consistent. let us go back to the run-up of the direct war. of wishful thinking

and bombast city created a reality that iraq had weapons of mass instruction and it was a matter of self-defense to go in and topple saddam hussein. to drive that on, when they were not being supported by the cia, dick cheney created his own and rumsfeld, a rump intelligence agency where they cherry picked them on various ideas to create a consistent reality that would drive a policy that they wanted. there is no consistency in donald trump. he doesn't feel he needs it. he wants to assert power over truth itself, over reality itself, to say it does not

exist, everyone has an agenda. the organs of accountability, the media, are only special interest, in fact they are enemies of the people, they have an agenda and it is not your agenda. host: here you say they lie on an outcome on policy, here is a former presidents talking about it. >> i shall say it again and again. your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign war. unions power has been growing. the point i make is by 1961, are we going to be ahead of them, i'm not sure we are. >> the use of weapons against -- >> the use of hostile actions

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 with that woman, miss linsky. -- miss lewinsky. >> 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 secret plan to end the war. how much have we gotten as a result in our society today with all these presidents telling us untruths. >> there is not a society on earth where leaders say things that are entirely true.

they have a larger goal. and hopefully the goal is to , make america work better. if obama suspected that the kinds of insurance plans that people had would go away, not be outlawed by the bill but market forces would cause those plans 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 missile gap. i am not an expert on this. i seem to recall that he may have inherited some bad information from his leaders. he may not have actively lied about it.

that is to say jfk. but i won't put money on it. there is a higher purpose. the difference is -- 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. that is too narrow a vision. everything he said recently in the wake of pulling out of the paris accords. he said -- i'm not here for paris, i am here for pittsburgh. pittsburgh said we are not a coal mining city anymore. they're only 50,000 people who actually work in coal. more people work at whole foods. it doesn't matter. his world which can shift and

move has nothing to do with the overall idea, the policy, the principal, it is just a chaos of the mind. that is what is so scary. host: you live in new york city? >> i live in brooklyn. host: 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. was that what drove you to write this thing, the people can understand why we feel this way. >> 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

that whatever mess ensues 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". a weird scrabble game you play on your phone. the day after the election she wrote in the chat box, i just want to die. there was not a single place, you could not block 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. every one is getting used to it but that sense of stress does not abate because at some point it is not about trump, it is about those foundational principles. host: it is called "the trouble with reality." but you mentioned --who is she? >> she is a journalist who grew 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. host: back in may, this is what she said about npr. >> the npr argument is that the definition of lie involved intent. npr does not have exclusive information on trump's intent. the euphemism misstatement, connotes a lack of intent. as though he took an accidental wrong step.

the thing is words exist in time. the word misstatement suggests a singular occurrence. the word misstatement apply to trump is actually a lie. host: what do you think? >> i think she's brilliant and absolutely right. national public radio is taking a very narrow view statement by statement by statement. what she saw is that the entire canon and endlessly generating engine of trump misdirection, of trump mendacity has an intent and the intent is to cast doubt on the ability to ever know what is true. to take control of reality itself. host: you write, if you think i am cracking wise to make a point, you are mistaken.

you had earlier said that there are never too rational people, it is me and my fax are right. i am sincere. my fax reflect the world as it is. donald trump's facts, as a rule, do not. i do not know the facts of his supporters, not really. i only know they voted for donald trump which is inconceivable to me. >> right and then i explain inconceivable in that i'm not wired to conceive it. that ultimately is the challenge. you read the outrageous part. because i was admitting that i believe what i believe and i do not understand what they believe but if i want to create a

reality that will hold up under stress and will not leave happy -- will not leave half the nation and all of their realities in distress then we have to understand what other people believe because it is the collision of their worldview and ours that has created all of this flying debris or waiting for a wind to blow it away. if we are waiting, it will be for a long time. host: what has been the reaction to your book? >> i have not been trashed for bias and i 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 poisoned by our water or something like that. no, i do not, because i expected -- i expected it and maybe that is why the reaction i hear is all positive because of the people who expect me to be full of crap, they would not bother wasting their ink saying so. i am transparent. i do talk about where i stand. i make an honest, clean breath 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. host: in the commercial mass media, have they been taking a more aggressive approach to donald trump than i have ever seen? >> donald trump is the first person to break the norms, the agreement the media had, this style of objectivity, walter cronkite, the man from the cloud style who would never express an opinion work in a consensus country. up until the time of the creation 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 was so expensive and it came at a time when the country was in existential fear of the atom bomb and the russians. not only that since the airwaves , were a limited resource, they had to deal with the government. the fairness doctrine. equal time and so forth. rules is that we no longer have, equal time and so forth. mostly swept away by reagan and it opened up the way to am radio with rush limbaugh a creative fox news ultimately. it was also a time when you defined a center and if you try to talk to the people on the margins, it would turn off all of your audience. that happened in the cultural norm also. you never saw people with accents, people of color, radio was far more democratic in the

19 -- 1920's than tv was in the 50's and 60's. objectivity, not offending anybody lasted for 60 years. suddenly there was a new technology that made everything cheap again. the internet. and a complete lack of consensus. we were not in existential fear anymore. 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 even accept what your role is, media, in our democracy. i will not concede that you have a right to information, i will not concede that your mission is to convey information. i-93 time -- i deny you three times.

and the press, as jack shafer of "politico" political told me, they are like a hill of red ants, if you walk around them, it will be ok, if you kick them, they will be all over you. for the first time in a long time the media believes they are incredibly relevant and the perhaps fate of the nation will depend on what they do. we know the media is incredibly polarized but there is a possibility they may. there is a possibility facts may have meaning again. they have to do a better job conceptualizing them.

a bit of ank it is tallying game. i think we can do better making those facts matter, but they have a job now. host: if you had to pin the best 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 knows you half -- you have to get your information from a wide variety of sources. host: where do you go? >> i go to those places that are not in love with trump, but have policies that mainstream republicans would like to see acted on.

i like those policies but at least we can share a cultural norm about what is normal, 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 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. one lives in brooklyn, one lives in los angeles. if you want to know how this moment has affected them they , both are engaged in various types of volunteer work. that they have never been before. they contribute to causes they care about. in other words, they show up. it behooves everybody who is worried about the direction of the country, no matter where you

stand, i think it behooves everybody to show up. host: the book, "the trouble with reality: a real nation in moral panic in our time." the author is brooke gladstone. thank you very much. >> thank you. announcer: for free transcripts or to give us your comment about this program, visit us at q&a.org. our programs are also available on c-span podcast. ♪ announcer: if you like this q&a

with brooke gladstone, here are some others you might enjoy. david kay johnston on his book, "the making of donald trump," we and maureen dowd, on her book, " a year of living dangerously." and washington post reporter robert coast up who points out similarities between the presidential campaigns between donald trump and ross perot in you can find those interviews 1992. online at c-span.org. tonight, on the communicators -- >> i tell you what, it was gigabits fast. that is something i never thought i would see in my career or my lifetime. that is fiber to your house fast. it is really, really exciting. >> in cih president on what the

5g network will look like for consumers. she also talked about broadband in rural areas and the recent spectrum auctions. >> what is the economic case for 5g? how do carriers make a return on that? $5 billion -- $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 forward, we need to build 300,000 small cell sites in the next few years. it looks like a pizza box, it is small and it is going to be attached to everything. these are going to be much more dense networks. they will be on 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 >> here on c-span, "washington journal" is next. we have a look at your headlines and take your phone calls. then we take you live to capitol hill for a discussion of proposed rules that would make foreign police agencies to access personal media information on u.s. citizens. coming up on today's "washington journal," we look at how a single-payer health care system would work with dr. margaret flowers and michael tanner from the cato institute. then on how states are reacting

to trump's friend quest on voter information as far as the connection to widespread voter fraud. we will be joined by stephen dinan. ♪ good morning, this is "washington journal," july 10. a story with donald trump jr. and paul manafort taking a meeting last year with a kremlin connected lawyer. --mising information compromising information about hillary clinton. if you turn your attention to the senate this week, they do come back. reports that efforts to pass and replace measures for the portable character are in trouble. is dead andit others are making an et