values. and i think that's an important path that lies ahead of us. >> on sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, emory university african-american studies chair, carol anderson, discusses her book, "one person, no vote." how voter suppression is destroying our democracy. she's interviewed by democratic congressman jamie raskin of maryland. >> you look at the real world history of the right to vote, it's been extremely contested. it's been violently challenged in many points. >> absolutely. so -- one of the things i talk about is that america is really an aspirational nation, and it's in those aspirations, we the people, we hold these truths to be self-evident. leader of the free world. those kinds of aspirations. it's based on those aspirations and not those kind of hard core realitieses where -- realities where people have fought in order to gain access to their

citizenship rights. >> watch this weekend, on c-span2's book tv. inues. caller: -- host: a conversation about fact checking in the age of president trump or the washington post fact checker since 2011. the world of fact checking now fundamentally different now than it was a little over 600 days ago? guest: no. fact the world of checking, which has been growing. since i first started doing this almost eight years ago. the core of fact checking is to explain complex policy issues. to viewers or readers. have a politician statement it is designed to unravel the complexity of difficult issues that often politicians speak in code words or short and.

the difference for donald trump, we have never encountered a politician, certainly not a president, who routinely says things that are wrong. and even even after he has been fact checked, repeats those wrong things. the one thing we have done that as different as we have now started compiling a list of every factual misstatement the president has made. , one of the main reasons to that is that we just can't keep up with all the things the president says. in that database, gears can find at washington post.com, in his first 601 days in office, president trump has made 5001 .alse or misleading claims let's focus on false or misleading claims. what is the criteria for making this determination? >> is it factually inaccurate? the fact checker is known for its pinocchio scale. from ae rate things

scale of one to four pinocchio spirit for pinocchio's is the worst. it has -- it is a reverse restaurant review. one pinocchio means there is some inaccuracy but it might be mostly true. if it is truly a completely true without a doubt we give a geppetto jack -- check mark. anything within the range of pinocchio's is something that we would put in that database. like i said, the president says so many things that are false or misleading, just recently, one particular day he -- the number was 125. claims, that we can't -- we fact check there's so a lot of those things are just to synthesis as opposed to a full-fledged fact check with a pinocchio rating. host: how do you do a full fact check of 125 claims in one day?/ guest: with a lot of difficulty

appeared i have a team of people that i work with. we divide the days. we alternate days. my colleague, who is -- produced this video and produces facts, that happened to be her day. she spent quite a lot of time compiling, identifying the claims, and then fact checking them. the president repeats a lot of things that are false already. of those were some of his greatest hits. for instance, he says he passed the biggest tax cut in u.s. history. it is really ranks about eight. as a percentage of the gross domestic product. he started building the wall, no, he has not. he has not been any money for the wall. he has gone some money for extension of a fence. he has not gotten money for his wall or prototypes. those kinds of things. he says those things in the seo he has said that before, here is

number 25. we go forward. host: if the viewers have questions about fact checking, now would be a good time to check in. he is with us until the bottom of the hour taking your calls. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. .ndependent (202) 748-8002 take us through the process of fact checking. guest: let's see. aboutially, first of all, half of the claims we fact check our the result of reader inquiries. where readers will contact us and say i heard a politician say this, is this true? they can contact us through facebook, twitter, email. there is a form that can fill out at the bottom of every fact check. we begin to investigate whether or not there is a semblance of truth to it. often, it involves first doing

some research on the internet. trying to find out where the -- where did they get this factoid. we might find a particular think tank article report. it involves contacting the staff of the politician. if not the politician themselves and saying why do you say this, why do you believe this. then, it involves checking with the government data or experts in the field. to assess how accurate that claim is. host: do you find yourself having a lot of philosophical discussions about what is truth? guest: no. clear. truth is pretty says wages aret growing for the first time and you look at the daytona and know, wages have been growing since 2014, that is pretty clear. host: take us through the most often claim according to the

chart that is online in washington post.com. russian collusion was an excuse to the democrats for having lost the election. thatresident repeating repeating this claim 137 times. you have the dates in which he has done that. guest: right. in that case, the president is claiming or suggesting that the whole russia investigation was simply the result of democratic rights. unexpectedly lost election and russiand this idea of collusion as a way to undermine his legitimacy of his election. we know from the facts, these are facts and reports published by republican committees, the investigation into possible russian collusion began in june 2016. when there was a tip from an fromalian diplomat that

campaign aid was talking about how the russians had gained access to hillary clinton emails, democratic emails. it started long before the fbi investigations been -- began long before hillary clinton lost election. easy to prove. on accurate. democrat from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. that duringnline the -- scandal, there were with complaints against him and kavanaugh, and that they had notified grassley and feinstein. in july. on the colorak

yesterday, who was railing against keith allison, you said they had photographs and video, and the woman went to the doctor for anemia and i don't know how one would get a photograph of anemia. if that is true i would like to hear it. thank you. i'm not really familiar with -- neither of those things are things that we have fact checked. thewe have not fact checked relationship between kavanaugh and krasinski. he has said that he was unaware of allegations that the judge had harassed women in the office. or in his courtroom. so, i can't comment on that. keith ellison, i am unaware of the issue. host: what do you think of the term fake news? guest: i hate that term.

there has been fake news since man learned how to talk. people have been spinning and trying to mislead from the dawn of time. there is not anything new. what is new, is the ability for false information to travel more quickly. it used to be that some people might cost of over a fence about things they heard or about someone or something or other. it would not get much past that neighbor. now, you can put it on a facebook be you can put it in a whatsapp chat. in some countries such as myanmar and india, where false information spread over social media is led to riots and mass death. that is the concern. it is not fake news, per se, it is the ability of false information to travel rapidly without being stopped or

corrected. is a lot of fact checked out there, do you think people truck -- trust the fact checkers today? guest: i can't say. i am on the board of the international fact checking network. which is an international organization of fact checkers from around the world. we have set some core standards that, in order to be verified as a verified member of the ifc and, you have to meet those standards. commitment to nonpartisanship, a commitment to transparency explaining how you reached your research. commitment tothat immediately make corrections if you make a mistake. everyone makes mistakes. talking abouto your financing and backing. so, that is an effort to have some general standards for fact checking around the globe. every year, those fact checking

organizations are re-verified by independent auditors. that are lots of people claim to be fact checkers. i can say that if you are a member of the ifc and and you are a verified member, then, people can actually go and look at the reports and document how these fact checking organizations are living up to those principles. guest: -- host: a republican, good morning. caller: good morning. my concern is that there has scrutiny, any type of and pole vaulting that is done by the washington post. i get real tired of it. i get more than slightly tired of it. way thatusted with the you people have attacked this president and done everything you can to make him look bad. it is disgusting to me.

i used to have faith in the media, i don't anymore. that is sad. i think, you know, the washington post devotes a lot of scrutiny to every president. atan tell you that at least the washington post fact checker, we fact check president obama repeatedly. at least 250 times. he earned for pinocchio's on numerous occasions. that theheck and see white house was not particularly happy with the scrutiny that we devoted to some of president obama's misstatements. with respect, i would say donald trump is in a somewhat different category in that, at least with obama, when the fact checked him and said he got for pinocchio's, he often did not repeat that purity would stop saying those claims. as would other politicians. mitt romney. jeb bush. john kasich.

hillary clinton they generally would stop saying false things once they had been fact checked. the noteworthy thing about president trump is that he will often keep saying it. that is different. it is not aimed particularly at this president. you, there are lots of democratic politicians who have not been happy with the coverage they received in the washington post. i gave for pinocchio's today to overwork, a candidate in -- with senatorebate cruz over the weekend and there is a drunk driving conviction that he was involved in about 20 years ago, and recently, the police reports can out and they show that he tried to leave the accident. theas asked about that in

debate. he flatly said i did not try to leave the accident. you have his memory 20 years later, or you have police reports that document in two different places, a witness saying that o'rourke did try to leave this situation -- the scene of the accident. the witness had to prevent him from leaving the scene of the accident. you weigh those two things and i'm going to go with the police report. you give his office a chance to respond saying here is the police report that i'm looking at, why is that different? guest: yes. usually, we get a response. in this case, i repeatedly contacted his campaign, both by text message and email. never received any response. usually, when we don't get a response from a candidate or campaign, it means they know that they are in trouble. from michigan. an independent. good morning. only really thing i need to know about this

gentleman is that he is from the washington compost. which is 100% liberal, 100% anti-trump in everything that they write. jeff owned by 100% liberal bezos who detests president trump. so, i really think this guy has no credibility whatsoever. all media, including the washington compost, c-span, everyone else is basically in the tank for the liberals, and they kiss obama's but for eight years. host: who do you trust? >> -- caller: not much, i will tell you that. the liberal media is a joke. host: what do you turn on in the morning to get your news? caller: to be honest, i am an independent. i don't really trust much of any media. so, i look at it all and i am very skeptical.

of any of it. i do not use print media at all. i use the internet for some of it. you have to be careful with that too. pretty much everything on tv is liberal. with the exception of fox news. a little bit of fox beard i watch a little bit of everything. i think it is all trash. he is wrong. frankly. tost of all, people have understand there is a difference between editorial pages and the news pages. the washington post editorial probablyould say is socially liberal in its policy, more conservative. they are big backers of the invasion of iraq for instance. the op-ed page is a mixture of both liberal voices and conservative voices.

george, a prominent conservative was on the pages of the washington post, recently passed away for decades. george, another prominent conservative. you have this dynamic where there are a number of prominent conservatives such as george will who do not like president trump. no one would say he is liberal, he is somewhat has turned away from the republican party because of this president. the washington post has gone out and hired other op-ed columnists who defend president trump on our pages. such as hewitt. arerites op-ed's that generally praiseworthy of the president. i will just say, those are the op-ed pages. know, callges, you me biased, but i think we played pretty straight. host: what about the colors come send about the ownership of the

washington post? >> i have met him a couple of occasions. , my understanding, you know, he is civil levels above mine. understanding is that he has no involvement at all and editorial product of the washington post. , he has helped fund a massive expansion the newspaper. , you could see that in the tremendous increasing staff. i do not believe he is involved at all the editorial product. host: andrew is a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. are a lot of colors this morning talking about the washington post picking on this president. facts are facts. truths are truths. something, the united nations, it was talking,

i believe he was talking about one of the fastest growing economies in the world. i don't think we are. tohink ethiopia is projected grow 8.7% over the next two years. ishink ghana, india, bhutan growing fast. continuesplain why he to say these things that aren't true? and none of his aides say that is not true, you have to keep on track with what you're saying. where are we in growing economies? guest: i don't have the statistics in front of me. is,, and you, it have to view things in context. is an advancedes economy. i would not compare it directly to an economy like bhutan.

what you do is look at a list of advanced industrialized economies and see where the united states ranks against those economies. at the moment, i don't have the statistics in front of me. that there are a number of countries on the list that probably exceed the united states. why does the president say things in an exaggerated form? i have wondered about that. i have -- i believe he is very situational. he believes in what he says at that moment. even though it may be completed contradictory from what he said the day before. you can see from the woodwork book, and other contemporary accounts, the president is not perceptive -- receptive to information the country takes what he believes. previous caller talked about the ownership of the washington post. jeff bezos, amazon.

there have been accounts written has shown him documentation that the amazon contract with the postal service is a moneymaker for the postal service. they have done this at least two occasions. yet, he refuses to believe it. even though his staff has gone out and documented why this is a good deal for the u.s. government. becausees to believe it he does not like the washington post coverage and he associates that with amazon, even though they are not connected in any way. host: 79 times, president has said that african-american unemployment is at the best number in the history of our country. guest: that is an adjusting the data is, you know, white good in terms of african-american employment. the president will either say it is the best in u.s. history. they have not track it for that long.

you can't make such a sweeping claim. the other thing that i find misleading about his comments and the unemployment rate is that when he ran for president he repeatedly said the unemployed meant rate was phony. you could not trust them. the numbers were bogus. they were made up. for thecular, african-american unemployment rate, he had a calculation that he got for pinocchio's for it because he had a calculation where he tripled in employment .ate for african american race when he was campaigning. now that he is president he is taking data that used to say was bogus and misleading and using it to say that he is doing a great job. when it was actually on a downhill slope throughout the obama administration. and has continued on the same downward slope once he became president. host: glenn kessler with us taking your calls, john and dallas, texas. i appreciate being on.

first of all, i want to say that there is nothing on msnbc that is not extremely left wing. it is left-wing democrat all the way. my question is he said that obama.act checking probably, the biggest lie in the history of man was said by obama over and over and over again. that is if you like your health care, you can keep your health care. if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. a one. gave it i don't you give it any more than that. we said we don't know what he meant. he could have meant something else. guest: he got for pinocchio's for that. we were the first news outnization to call

president obama for that comment. during the fact checker was reestablished in 2011. we were not in business for the debate over obama care. in two thousand 9, 2010, the washington post wrote three articles saying president obama's claim that you can keep your plan and that was not sustainable and could not be so, you know, the washington post laid out the information there. when it was apparent, the president's promise was wrong, we gave him for pinocchio's. guest: maryland, independent. caller: good morning. i have been reading the washington post since the 1950's. i read washington post and new

york times and a lot of other stuff every day. i have seen the washington post over the years, it has gone from a fairly, it is a live in democrat liberal newspaper. they never found any kind of a tap -- cap tax cut that they support, it used to be on the editorial page. now, it is in every -- you can read -- if you want to go through it, i would do it online. what's an example of something you saw today or yesterday? caller: i haven't been to the post yet. what i see is everything they is down for trump. ,ou can't find any article occasionally they do something that is actually worthy, i print out stuff that is worthy of reading. good analysis, something that covers something in a fair way. host: why do you still subscribe? caller: living give you an

example. he just said this. this is how they do their fact checking. trump said the unemployment rates for blacks is the best in history. glenn just said because we have 1776,pt it for the entire when trump says that i don't don't to all goodness, i think that, what i think is this, he means as long as we have been keeping records on black unemployment, this is the best it has been. that is what he means. they go to every extreme. they go crazy with stupid stuff. i have 30 years of doing analysis, political, economic, and national security. that was 1.i made. my other point was that the president has been inconsistent in the way that he has cited the statistics whereas he would say that they were false or

misleading, which was a false and misleading statement at the time. guest: -- host: michelle n l a. he did notp said release his taxes because they were under -- they were being audited. has that changed was that a lie? what are you saying on the issue? odds are pretty slim that he will release his taxes give many as are beat up he promised he would and has not. prevent aothing to person from releasing their taxes when they are under audit. president in released his taxes when he was under audit. whether the audit is continuing, whether there was actually even an audit is unclear. thoses going to be one of political promises that are not going to be kept unless congress actually forces him to reveal

his taxes. which is quite possible if there is a democratic congress. --y could easily require release it on their own. they could ask the irs to provide the tax. last call and montpelier, virginia. independent. good morning. thank you both. i appreciate the opportunity. i want to throw in an opinion that follows up with a quote. my opinion on all of this would , themething to the effect notion that an individual can divorce themselves >> we'll going to leave the discussion here to take you live to the u.s. house. you can watch the rest online at c-span.org. just type "washington journal" in the search bar. the who is about -- house about to gavel back in to start legislative work. 38 bills on the calendar today including murs sure on flu preparation and response and another on transparency in prescription drug pricing. all requested votes will take place at 6:30 p.m. eastern. live now to the house floor on c-span.