is featuring three new nonfiction books starting at 6:20 p.m. eastern. thomas,ook clarence editor at large myron magnet the justice. >> there is no higher, nobler, more just or more noble or up-to-date purpose for any government. if the framers had failed to realize that ideal because of the civil war amendments proved their design was in thomas's word, perfectible. afterwards, we talk about efforts to overturn the ban on women in combat. >> it was a very common experience that all women i talked to experienced some form of discrimination and most had experienced harassment and many had experienced assault.

affirmation that we had experienced something that desperately needed to be addressed and acknowledged and tonged fueled the desire take these issues to capitol hill and demand reform. eastern, 10 p.m. former second lady of the united states, jill biden discusses her family, and career. so nervous about getting up in front of a crowd. but then when we were elected vice president, i thought you know what, i have been given such a platform. i can talk about all my passions come all the things that i love. education, community colleges, military families, and i thought i cannot waste is this platform. i had better get better at this. >> three new nonfiction books 6:20 p.m..ting at

sunday at 8 p.m. eastern, david mccullough discusses his ."ok "the pioneers >> is like going to a country is never set foot in year two going a detective case. that is the adventure. all of it look at with a fresh eye and very often -- i have never not found was ignored or not known about or not discovered as yet. pioneersook, about the , who established the first settlement in the northwest territory, it is all material has ever looked at.

>> a good saturday morning. columnist for the washington post. he joins us this morning on the phone. do we owe itasks, to society and ourselves to tune out the news? how do you answer that question? guest: good morning. weaid in the article that needed to ask this question about how much time and energy we are giving to the news, particularly to the ego chamber -- echo chamber of the news that most informed citizens find themselves trapped in. i was taking off from a really provocative longer essay in the

guardian written by oliver berkman, who points out that for most of history, it's been relatively hard to find information. it was the duty of the good citizen to seek out that information in order to be informed. because of digital technology, all of a sudden, we find ourselves in the opposite situation. we are drowning in a sea of information. it is everywhere. the people who put information wayshere are competing in overt and sometimes covert to grab and hold our attention because that is a scarce resource now, time and attention. the way they do that, in many cases, is to feed us a steady diet of things they already believe will upset us, make us

angry, make us suspicious. deep human emotions that can be triggered by the news. situationthis strange where sometimes the people who spend the most time looking for information, trying to be divided, are the most the most upset, the most suspicious of fellow americans. result this perverse into news is making people potentially worse citizens than better once. -- better ones. host: a news item about a mayor and a councilman in a small town in georgia and the subject of race relations -- talk about that. to be just happened

talking with an acquaintance of mine who was very upset recently by news about an elected official in georgia who had said want people to races, god didn't like interracial marriage -- this coming in reaction to another elected official in --ir little city and rural in rural georgia that wasn't n african-american -- i don't want to say these were healthy things for these public officials to be saying.

acquaintance my was quite upset about the idea that racial hatred was so widespread and growing and becoming more common in the united states. another way of looking at it, until very recently, she never would have heard of this event. arguably, it's not a terribly important event in the life of an american living 1500 miles away from this tiny town of 1300 people, a highway exit in georgia. algorithm, her past newsng behavior let the

source know that she would be interested in this information, sofed it to her immediately that she started her day with further evidence in her mind that america was going in a terrible direction. algorithms make it hard to separate the reality from the background noise. host: you mentioned the oliver berkman column in "the guardian." he says some of the pushback that it's easier to tune out the news if you're privileged enough to not be impacted by what you're reading in the news. guest: certainly, that is true, i suppose.

i guess my pushback to that would be in what sense are you impacted. if you are simply upset by the news, it confirms the point. neither of us is saying that people should be willfully ignorant. the question is are you better informed by spending 8-10 hours a day in front of your screens hearing versions of the same thing over and over again? does that really make you better 30ormed than if you spent minutes or an hour a day getting a balanced diet of the news and going on with your life in other ways that may be more may do more, that

to build community, that may be more oriented toward solving problems rather than stewing over them? host: when should people turn down the volume and how long should they turn it down for? guest: if you get to the point at whereany people are they say i'm depressed all the do,, i don't know what to i've never felt so bad, all these expressions of an angst, despair, even, a over the state of the world. here's the real news today. the world is a mess. guess what? it always has been.

there have always been terrible things going on, people doing awful things toward another. it's always been our obligation as citizens to try to behave better, to show more love and respect to one another. argue,do that, i would away from our screens more effectively than sitting behind our screens. host: the headline in his piece from wednesday, do we owe it to society and ourselves to tune out the news? washington journal continues. host: jennifer kavanagh is on your screen, the lead author of a new report studying news media subjectivity over the past three decades. remindwe dive into that, us what you do. nonpartisan,s a

nonprofit organization, founded in 1948. most people know us for national security. we have a strong portfolio of domestic work looking at civil justice, education, health care. our mission is to inform policymakers with research and analysis. we publish 1000 reports each year and they are all available for free on our website. and.org, where you can find this report. report?you do this guest: a couple years ago, last aar actually, we published report on truth decay. we use that term to refer to the diminishing role facts, data and analysis play in our discourse. we look at this phenomenon. among the drivers, we talk about

changes in the media ecosystem, anything from changes in the speed and volume with which we are able to get information, the rise of social media and the internet, algorithms that feed info to us non-subjectively and we want to quantify what those changes look like. in the first report, we describe them qualitatively and talk about why we think they matter. in this report, we wanted to dig in and say, how has news changed over time? how has presentation changed? how can we measure it? that is important. if we want to understand implications of changes and develop solutions if we think that is a problem, we need to identify specifically, what changes happened. host: we will be talking about the report in the next 45 minutes of washington journal. how do you quantify the diminishing role facts play

overtime? guest: in this report we collected texts of data entrance trips. -- wek at newspapers collected this data and used a software we develop at rand to do text analysis. software looks for patterns in words and strings of words that allows us to quantify things like level of emotion, amount of argumentation, subjectivity, objectivity. we have 121 different characteristics we can measure. host: example? guest: the software searches were all those things. subjectivity, personal morality,e, conversation, anger, positive and negative emotions. text, splite the newspaper samples, we split the

year 2000 and we can say how these different characteristics have changed across a dividing point. we can compare across platforms. newspapers versus online journalism. how have those forms of news differed along these characteristics? host: you look at specific organizations. 15 different news organizations. times,ton post, new york st. louis post-dispatch, abc, msnbc,c, cnn, fox, breitbart, the blaze, daily caller, buzz feed, politico and huffington post. guest: the selection of the sources were different for each platforms. for newspapers, we wanted a long time span. that was the advantage of using newspapers. we can go back 30 years.

when we looked for, we needed text data, we could not use archived copies. we needed text based data. we want to minimize cost because we do not have a ton of resources to do the study. we were limited. the ones we have the longest time horizon for were new york times, washington post and st. louis post-dispatch. test the sameto methodology on other papers. television, we are in a better situation. we can collect the universe of broadcast news channels in the three major cable news channels. we can collect the universe of things we are interested in. for online journalism, we wanted to pick a balanced sample. three left-leaning, three right-leaning samples. we picked the highest

consumption, so people were actually reading and using these. that is a measure of relevance. how many people are influenced by these outlets. we limited it to things that did not also have print or television analog. only online journalism. as we are having this conversation, phone lines are open for questions and comments with jennifer. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. to this question of subjectivity -- 2019.ears from 1989 who fares the best? comparisons, two over time and two across platforms.

broadcast television and newspapers, we chose 2000 because that is when the internet past the tipping point. that is a good place to split data. newspapers did not change that much. changes were subtle. we see a shift to a more narrative form of news. storytelling. rather than, in the pre-2000 example we see context-based news, traditional reporting, who, what, where, when, why. 2000, you seepost that same info but presented in a story. the story of a homeless child rather than just a blow-by-blow account of homelessness. we see that shift, but it is small. touse statistical analysis represent significance and size. we are most interested in biggest changes, substantially

meaningful to presentation of news. for newspapers, changes are small. television, a little bigger, but still pretty small. you see a shift toward more subjectivity, personal perspective, stories being told less in an academic style, which is what you see pre-2000 and more toward conversations, unplanned speech, interviews, more subjective personal perspective use of i and first-hand accounts. autobiographical accounts, much more post 2000. the biggest changes are across platforms. significant difference between broadcaster knows him -- broadcast journalism and cable. you see something much more subjective in cable, much more subjective,ch more which you would expect to find for the cable model.

the biggest change of all was print versus online journalism. subjective, advocacy journalism is much more common online where people try to convince you of their opinion. those are the broad picture changes. the key point i would leave you with on this question is, over time changes are small. what is driving the biggest changes are the platform changes. host: this report available at rand.org. check it out or call in about the changes you have seen in the past 30 years. gary, indiana, democrat. caller: good morning to both of you. i love that tie. looking elegant.

maam, there is a thing called power of the press, you well know. winston churchill once said, with great power comes great responsibility. if you don't want to tell the truth, just say so. do not take a journalism job. let's be fair and honest. let us hear all the truth or forget this thing. some of the history here. truth decay. hasn't it always been around in the news business? yellow journalism of the late 1800s comes to mind. guest: in the first report we talk about historical analogs. yellow journalism, tabloid journalism in the 1920's, distrust and propaganda in media

in the 1970's around vietnam, for example. there are periods of time when we see an uptick of concern and objectivity of info being provided in media. host: it is it -- is it evan flow or constantly moving toward flow or is it constantly moving toward subjectivity? guest: it is hard to know. if we could get more data, we could certainly measure. the concern now, the reason people are talking about this issue now, has to do with the scale and scope of changes we have experienced with the rise of internet and social media. this has revolutionized the ecosystem. there is not a comparable change unless you go back to the printing press. it is important to recognize the way and roll technology plays, we are getting different news

and in different formats, being produced in different ways. all of these changes bring with them benefits but also unintended consequences in terms of the ease of which information spreads, with which that kind of information can get into the information ecosystem and spread quickly. host: jack, republican, south carolina. caller: good morning. much of this is driven for profit? msnbc appealing to their fans. you have fox. always someone hawking a book. seems to me it is more about numbers than beliefs. guest: you bring up a number of good points. if we are talking about why changes have occurred, i would point to two main factors.

they go hand-in-hand. economics and technology. economics have changed, driven in part by changes in the way news is produced and consumed. technological changes. seeomic changes, we increasing number and diversity of media outlets and the barrier is much lower. anyone can be a source. ad dollars isr much more intense. cost is pressure to reduce and produce news in the cheapest way possible to increase the margin. what is cheapest is commentary or a blog, sharing opinions. traditional investigative

isrnalism in previous eras much more expensive. you see that shift in terms of the type of news or info we are getting. the second change, a tendency to cater to niche audiences. if you tailor your message to your specific audience, that will affect how you share your info or frame your argument. the third thing is providing information people will be attracted to. people like things that agree with them. they are attracted to things that are sensational/exaggerated or something that they can relate to, personal or subjective. those things affect the way news is presented. technology changes the way news is produced and the way we consume. it is different to read news on a mobile phone versus a newspaper. technology allows news to be crowd sourced, blogging, all

different forms of news contributing to changes as well. host: when it comes to your sample for online news sources, it did not take into effect this impact of crowdsourcing, fact checking online, of citizen journalists. you talk about what role they play in the online media environment and is that something that can be studied? guest: it is different than professional journalists writing articles. it is no worse or no better. we are not making a value judgment. you could study it. you need a sample of citizen journalism and compare it to online or print outlet, the process would be identical to what we did here, just using different sources. there is a range of things we would like to study. we would like to do radio transcripts and see how that has

changed over time. thinking about images and the role video plays, because so much of our news is visual now. that would be interesting. host: marina del rey, california, robert, independent. caller: [indiscernible] industry,cottage starting with talking heads. and you and far right have paid contributors -- [indiscernible] -- apologize, you are going in and out. idea thateard the news is opinion based, basically an industry of sharing opinions. that is true for certain outlets. when we did the comparison of broadcasts to cable news, we knew we would find differences. we were comparing things that were aimed at the same thing. broadcast news is intended to provide news based information

where cable journalism is much more a platform for opinions. that is true in certain areas. it is also true that all news comes with some filter. no matter how hard we, as human beings try to be objective, we will never be 100%. anything anyone writes comes with bias. if you look at national newspapers, any other outlets still trying to provide it isased accounts, impossible to get rid of all bias. host: karen buchanan on twitter pointing out the differences writing, "a distinction should be made for following local news, national, world or political news. too much politics is bad for digestion and mental health."

julie, springfield, missouri, democrat. caller: i have noticed ever since fcc rules were changed, like in the late 1980's, when the fairness doctrine was done away with, then going forward to the 1990's when the telecommunications act was passed in 1996 and in 2003, another fcc rule was changed, where it enabled a lot of concentration and ownership. i have detected a lot of difference in the news in my neck of the woods in springfield. especially in the beginning of 2000, outlets were taken over by conservative media ownership. tone,notice a change in even though it did seem that what you were saying about the more opinionated news was already taking hold through cnn

and that kind of thing. what do you think about that? the ownership. now that corporate media is very -- politico isn, owned by comcast or has some kind of tie to it and just the whole political, corporate atmosphere in the news. how do you think that has eroded our truth? guest: there have been a lot of consolidation in media industry. interesting contrast with diversity in terms of number of sources at a lower level and the concentration of ownership. interesting contrast. that is the issue of corporate ownership. that is the biggest implication, some regional and local papers, regional and local news channels, as you referred to, they have really been taken over

by these corporate entities and a lot of resources have been stripped away. if you think about local areas that do not have access to good news info, some people call these news deserts. it is hard to get access to good journalism whether local, national or any level. that is a concern. no mediaf its faults, outlet is perfect, information is important. it is the foundation of democracy. areas that have no access to news, that is concerning and something we should think about, ways to ensure there is an economically sustainable model for local journalism that provides that info to people. host: truth decay, the term you will see often in this report on the rise of subjectivity over the past 30 years when it comes to various media platforms. truth decay, the increasing

disagreement about facts and analytical interpretations of facts and data. what is a concrete example? guest: the debate over the safety of vaccines. we have increasing evidence that they are safe. an increasing number of people believe they are unsafe. vaccines,xistence of vaccine skeptics have always existed but this divergence between the amount of good data we have and the trend in terms of numbers of people who reject that data. host: what about the blurring of the lines between opinions in fact? guest: look at social media or cable news, places where facts and opinions are mixed together in a way difficult to distinguish. when you see someone talking on cable news, if you are not an expert on the topic it is hard to know if what they are providing you is fact or

opinion. that can be difficult for any kind of user. you see it in newspapers as well, online. you can see it pretty much anywhere. host: 20 minutes left with jennifer. the report available at rand.org. tell us what you think about truth decay. do you see it when you're watching the news? (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. howie, california, independent. caller: good morning. up but it is not new. we went back 30 years in this study but you can go back, i have old newspapers that go back to world war ii. you wouldn't believe some of the

comments in there about slant eyed, yellow comments made at that point in time. we have always had problems with journalism. i have a couple quick points. responsibilitynd of journalism. i remember watching election night, 2016. i turned it off because i was totally convinced hillary had won. -- i did find it off not find it out until the next morning that we had had an election. rachel maddow had told us this was over, even if donald trump won every state that was close there was no way he was going to win. that was in news. i know rachel is in opinion. she was not expressing opinion.

she was expressing fact. we have serious problems, ongoing for a long time. truth decay, we have to go a lot more than 30 years. we need to really stick with firsthand information. televisionlive on like c-span does, covering congress and the senate and the president and look at what is really happening. host: we will take those topics. guest: you are right. unfiltered info is the best. if you can see it yourself, you have the straight facts. that is not always possible. some people don't have the time to consume all their news unfiltered and they need it packaged in some form. the key thing is recognizing there is nothing wrong with subjectivity in journalism. there is different types of information. we want a range of different

types. based,sed, opinion personal perspective and interviews. one of the things that comes out of this report for a consumer is the understanding that different types of platforms are not replacements for each other. they are complements. de would include a range of sources from all categories. you go into your news consumption knowing, i will watch cable news and that comes with these different biases, newspaper has different bias. you can filter that as a reader and come to your opinion or understanding of an issue by synthesizing these different types of information. morning, will. caller: good morning. i watch you guys all the time.

internet effect. i am a computer person. when i first came across the public internet, it has positive effects, no doubt, but it also has many negative effects in terms of people having access to andrmation that they search they have found this to be true, to search out information that convinces or confirms their views instead of local news or newspapers, typically in the past. it has only been 20 years. we have more of a balanced approach. the key reasons of the polarization of the country and people is that people guide themselves increasingly toward

what they want to hear instead of being more subjective and open to ideas. instead of listening, they are getting it. yorke a railroad to new and technology, i am not a big fan of. i worked in it. everyone is on their phone. they do not talk. they do not listen. everyone is on their phone. it is a bad scene to watch. that is all i want to say. host: how long have even making that ride? guest: often enough -- caller: often enough to see it changed dramatically. host: what were people doing on that train ride before cell phones? caller: reading newspapers, window, looking out the seeing what neighborhoods look like, what they are passing, what the weather looks like. talking.

observing. being interactive. i used to be on a train, i would always strike up a conversation with a person next to me. people don't even fake it. they don't want to talk to you. every single person on the train, everyone is on their phone. that is very disturbing in my book. that is how people are communicating these days. you sit at a bar these days, people don't talk. everyone is looking at their phone. it is a disturbing trend. adults and children, especially. host: thank you. technology has a big role in the changes we have seen in media, not only how they affect economics but also the way news is consumed and produced. you are right.

online is easy for us to find info that agrees with us. we like to be right. that is our tendency. you have to choose to seek out information you disagree with in order to get that other perspective. today newspaper, you are more likely to be confronted, because of the greater balance we see on that type of platform. tohink this shift internet-based news fuels some of these tendencies we have, cognitive bias that we have two seek out certain types of info over other types. host: advice for encountering truth decay -- what about for news producers? guest: this report highlights changes we have seen over time and ways platforms differ. what is unique about this report is the ability to measure. we are not just say we observe this qualitatively but we can put numbers on them and say

which changes are greater than others. in the report we do not make specific recommendations because we do not place value judgments on these. that would be the second step of this agenda. do these different ways of presenting news affect how people interpret information? are people more susceptible to disinformation when it is presented in a certain style, online, cable, newspapers? we can begin to say something about what these changes mean for the impact. host: will you take those questions on? guest: yes. we are planning to take it on. that report lends itself to recommendations for journalists. if we see that certain news has negative implications, then those types of news, what can we do to restore whatever it is that makes journalism have positive invocations? host: when do you expect that to

be out? guest: we will have to get started first. if we start later this year, it will probably take us 1.5 years, probably late 2020, 2021. host: we will talk about it then. next 15 minutes, washington republicans, democrats and independents as usual. go ahead. disturbing,nd most having been a journalist since the 1950's, the delivery strategies. someone yelling at me over the television -- the interruptions to the guests brought to speak their opinions and attacks on individuals and groups, i find most difficult to tolerate especially.

i find that difficult with cable news. i wondering if these were found to be significant different over the past 20 years? host: how many hours a day do you spend watching the news? now so i am homebound spend a great deal of time watching cable news. i also do document searches. way i use thely internet news. host: do you take a break from the news for days or weeks at a time? caller: i do indeed remove myself from cable for weeks at a time. host: when do you know it is time to do that? caller: when i am finding the behavior of the spokespeople so irritating that i cannot catch the news anymore. host: thank you. guest: we were able to detect

those differences. we did not look at cable journalism over time -- we compared it to broadcast journalism. the networks. we saw the differences you are talking about. it is much more conversational, there is more emotion, there are -- it is very oral form of delivering the news, very personal and interactive. that emotion element is key. capture that emotion and stir it up. there is other research, not by us but by others, that shows that outrage journalism is really prevalent on cable news. host: massachusetts, jason, independent. caller: good morning. interesting topic. i'm finishing up my masters thesis on entertainment values

inc. into network news. in the 1980's, well, i was a teenager in the 1980's thinking i was becoming well-informed about the world by watching network news. one of the things in this, in my thesis that i found was, i wanted to believe it was technology, that it was mostly occurring in the 1970's when media consultants were brought in to local news and then network news but what i found was, and this was from the beginning when network news was first introduced in the 1950's to when it became in the 30 minute context, the dramatization, overreliance on visual was baked in from the beginning. ton, when you marry that

broadcast journalism that is born out of a capitalistic system, the end results are what we have now. the fairness doctrine, getting rid of it, didn't make much difference in news because someone could present, if you needed to put on the opposite opinion, you could put it on a 3:00 a.m., which would satisfy the requirement. i don't know if you looked -- you said you went back 30 years -- edward epstein's, news from nowhere, when he was able to be at nbc news in 1968 to really look at how the news process, how'd news was developed, how stories were selected, how film was edited. did you look at any of that? host: before you go, your thesis sounds interesting. what do you want to do with your masters? caller: i like teaching.

i taught in grad school. i enjoy teaching history. my masters is in american studies. i like history. -- thesaid, the news other part, the reason i selected this was, because, the news, when you watch it, they or youu the opinion, have the opinion from watching network news and you still have that today, from just watching television, television became way more trusted than newspapers and still is, you are well-informed, even though you were getting simplified stories, you still felt, i know what is going on in the world. even though there was no context to most stories. it did get worse from the 1960's -- i looked at nbc news, i took a broadcast from the vanderbilt

news archive and put them against boston globe and the new york times, as to what stories were presented. host: thank you for bringing it up. familiar with the specific book you mentioned. we did look at some work, similar, about other new sources. how is news produced and how has that process changed over time? we go back to the role economics plays. economics has forced media companies to come back with resources they have for journalists and editors and that hasn't locations for the type of implications- has for the type of news we see. you cannot spend three weeks deep diving on a specific topic. sources have to be spread more thinly. some of the changes we see in newspapers and other platforms is driven by the shift toward something cheaper.

that does not mean we lost fact-based journalism. we can point to good examples of fact-based journalism in the past years that have provided insight into key issues. it means it is less common. we see an explosion on the other end of this objective, easy to produce journalism. because it is so easy to produce, and there is demand for. news jason said television is more trusted than newspapers. is that something you have studied? television tends to have higher levels of trust then newspapers but that differs by demographic groups and changes over time. the lowest trust is for online journalism and news through social media. these trends change over time. there is some back-and-forth. me asing that struck interesting during research was the idea that people tend to

report their most trusted source as the source they use most often. there is a close link between the news we consume and the news we trust. it is hard to disentangle whether we trust, whether we consume news we trust or trust news we consume. which is first? trust driving consumption? consumption, we set our levels of trust to justify consumption decisions? that is a hard question to disentangle. that was interesting to me. poll, gallupting poll, tracking polls over many decades, this chart showing american confidence in newspapers, those who say they have a great deal or a lot of trust in newspapers back in the 39% in 1990the high and steadily falling through

2016 and shooting up again, 20% up to 27% in 2017. guest: 2018 data suggests decline. host: numbers from gallup polling available at gallup.com. peter, north carolina, republican, greensboro. caller: thank you for taking my call. interesting show an interesting guest. two things that apply to newspapers. if you read any articles closely you can tell exactly bias your guest is talking about. it is there all the time. sometimes it is subtle. sometimes it is blatant. the way i pick up on this as i read the adjectives in sentences very closely. the thrusthey alter of the sentence totally. a marketing, i am in

that has arge -- large newspaper but it is part of a group of eight newspapers in north carolina and virginia. they rely so entirely on the associated press for content every day. is, does anyone at a toal newspaper bothere edit what comes from the associated press? the articles often have the person's name who wrote the article. most frequently it just says it is the associated press. i don't know who the hell that is. i get confused. i will hang up and listen to the answer. trade show. -- great show. guest: this goes back to corporate ownership of local papers. another trend we have seen in

local journalism, because they do not have resources to produce content all the time, they rely on syndicated columns or newswires for their stories. i don't think it is a question of not bothering to do it. they don't have the resources or people or money to invest time in editing associated press stories. associated press and reuters are looked at as the trusted newswires. they tend to be pretty objective. characteristic for passing them on to local papers. that goes back to larger concern about the lack of local journalism and the ability to have that deep knowledge of a given locality. i have talked to some reporters who started in local journalism who would move to the town and live there and experience that town and write about it in a different way than currently

happens. host: chris, omaha, democrat. caller: the guy who called in, attributing the quote to winston churchill, with great power comes great responsibility, was actually uncle ben from spider-man. i did not want that misinformation out there. host: thanks. sandra, missouri, independent. caller: good morning. i am enjoying this segment. i started listening to c-span, watching c-span and listening about two years ago. i enjoyed this guest and hope you have her back because listening to her responses to everyone who calls in and how she speaks on an intricate and nuanced comprehensive level, showing her knowledge, i just like her disposition.

i wish i could sit at a roundtable with her and certain other people to discuss this topic in a longer discussion. it, quickly, i want to say liked when she pointed out that we should get, not only truth, but also opinions as well and get a good mix and different perspectives. that is so meaningful. -- ofjust got truth only course i value truth, i don't want lies -- but i like to hear opinion pieces from certain people who seem even keeled, levelheaded, thinking people, independent, non-followers. i like the way this young lady is. i just want to compliment you for bringing her on but i also want to say, i think truth decay in american journalism is part

and parcel of the way this country was founded. i hope you do not hang up on me but i just want to say, the way this country was founded, there are so many good things about this country. i love this country. with the way the land was stolen and the way lies were told and a certain narrative has been time, and propagated over it almost feels like the top down problem is from the owners of all the media outlets, the top down problem is there is a and it isbeing pushed really not a good thing. it is, keep the people divided and fighting each other and confused so that we won't really deal with the real issues. host: we will take your point. we seeyou are right that in the media industry narrative

coming from whoever is in charge, whether a specific journalist or corporation, that is not universal. there are media outlets that provide nuanced, fact-based information. we are subject often to narratives that come from various sources. this is not just a u.s.-based problem. focused on the united states but we are doing a project looking at europe. we see those trends in europe, as well as elsewhere, in terms of the way in which media and the changes in the ecosystem have affected information and the way it is disseminated and consumed, having many of the same effects we observe here. the global context, we focused on the u.s. today but having the global picture and understanding this is a phenomenon occurring internationally puts a broader perspective on changes we have

talked about today. more a subject to talk about down the road. tod.org is the website to go to >> here is a look at some of what is coming up tonight on c-span. leading off our evening schedule is our road to the white house coverage of joe biden's rally in philadelphia. berniehat, senators sanders and edward markey and representative alexandria ocasio on the green new deal and climate change. then, the decommissioning of nuclear power plants. ♪ journal,'s washington live everyday with news and policy issues that impact you. sunday morning, stephen moore of the heritage foundation will

discuss the trump administration's economic record and campaign 2020. michael smirk anish will talk about the democratic presidential field and prospects for president trump's -- michael about the will talk democratic presidential field and prospects for president trump's reelection. >> once tv was three giant networks in a government-supported service. smalln 1979, a organization with the big name let viewers decide what was important to them. c-span opened the doors of washington policymaking, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has changed. there is no monolithic media, broadcasting has given way to

narrowcasting, youtube stars are a thing, c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span, is nonpartisan coverage of washington is provided by a -- provided as a public service you can make up your own mind. biden held a rally in philadelphia billed as his campaign kickoff. a largey took place at traffic circle in the center of the city. ♪ [applause]

>> is so great -- >> it is so great to be home. every single weekend, my sisters and i would pile into our family station wagon and come up to the bridge to go in see my grandparents in southern jersey. [cheering]

my summers were spent watching the phillies with my dad. [cheering] waitressing at the shore. i watched the parade and took class trips to the planetarium, the betsy ross house, and the liberty bell. [cheering] i am an upper moreland golden bear and villanova wildcat. i ran the broad street 10 miler and forever fly eagles, fly. so as you can see, this city is part of who i am, and no matter where i go, or where i am, i will always and forever be a philly girl.