more inclusive place. >> actor nick to vicky in response to seeing disabilities underrepresented. sunday night, he will talk about this year's entries and winning films. >> ridgewood by cheryl atkinson, author of the book quote slanted: how the news media taught us to love censorship and hate journalism." you have written several books taking a look at the media, what's sets this apart from others? host -- guest: it is the death of the news as we once knew it, who has been observed by people who do not necessarily know what is behind it. in this third book, i talk about what is happening with social

media i posit, quite convincingly, that this trend to censorship in social media is tied to political and corporate interests that have solis -- have successfully controlled news narratives. . they saw in 2016. the public could still get unfettered access to study the powerful interests and viewpoints and people, so they decided to figure out and have done so successfully, how to control the information we see ully how to ce information we see online. host: we heard about social media leading up to the election. you are saying before then these trends were happening? guest: right. big tech for all of its flaws and invading our privacy was not interested in interceding between us and information until 2016 when they were lobbied to do so by special interests who wanted to stop certain narratives and storylines and advance others.

it can be traced specifically to 2016, really targeting donald trump with interests that saw him rise in popularity despite the fact that pretty much all news organizations were telling people. for for him, these interests -- telling people don't put for him, these interests could control normal print publications. they started focusing on my. host: who are the special interests? guest: there are many of them. they're not always divided along political and ideological lines. that is the most obvious thing i think people have seen and put to. there are also corporate industries like the pharmaceutical industry which lobbied our politicians and media organizations and control the narratives we see every day. that was back in the early 2000's. the first pick in street i saw

successfully influencing the news in a major way that qualified is what i call censorship, not wanting to air a story at all rather than representing various points, i didn't want people to hear certain scientific studies. the tactic i saw the pharmaceutical industry use was adapted by other political interests. host: tactics such as want -- such as what? guest: hiring crisis management firms, starting nonprofit to figure how to influence news from the corporate level as well as getting into the newsroom by logging with talking points and other narratives. step, i talked about this in my last book, this industry of figuring out how to influence our information landscape moved into our newsroom in a more direct way. they didn't just figure out how to manipulate us and dictate how

we talk about a story from the outside, we hired them into our newsroom's. i talked about how we pay these political consultants and analysts salaries to distribute propaganda and we allow ourselves to be used as tools. they should be paying us, if anything, to have the outlets of the talking points every day to get to these mass audiences. we have invited them to work and our newsrooms as reporters and anchors in many cases. i argued that in many instances we are one and the same in these special interest. the firewalls have come down between the news division in the interests they are supposed to be reporting on. host: our guest will be with us for the hour. if you want to ask about her reporting and her latest book, "slanted: how the news media taught us to love censorship and hate journalism," you can call us.

republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. you start pressing the narrative refers to a storyline that influential people want told in order to narrow your views. that is chosen ideas deep within society so that they're no longer west and -- so the questions are no longer permitted. can you elaborate on that? guest: this was unheard of 15 years ago, the notion that a story should be aired or should -- for person should not be interviewed because their ideas were wrong or dangerous. it used to be we heard from all different viewpoints. now the narrative has taught us -- and i think this has been a successful propaganda effort -- we decide who is right and who is wrong even if we can't know the truth of the matter. then we are to shape what we

report to -- to the public by making sure we controversial lies those who are -- controversialize those who are off that narrative. we push instead a one-sided .ersion of somebody's truth if you dig behind that, it is not a fair-minded this is what we think is right, this is what we push out to you because we can't know what is true. the election is a good example. regardless of whether one thinks there was fraud or whatnot, the fact that so many news reports and social media within a day or two were reporting their sibley wasn't. this -- there simply wasn't. they did not know whether there was fraud or not, they only knew what other people tell them which is what we should be reporting if we are journalists. if we claim to know something we

can't know, we declare something to be true and something to be false, and then we turn out to be wrong. i think this contributes to the corrosion of public trust in the media, government, and all our institutions. "to: you add in the book, begin with and narrative always presents multisided issues in a one-sided fashion. the standards and judgments applied to the target smeared by narrative never applied to those advancing the narrative or their allies." thet: there is a book about verbiage of the narrative, they were greeted against donald trump and his supporters. this is not something said previously if at all. when the other side presents the same source of information as

you would say without evidence, they are not called on it. dictates news without evidence to claim something is true, they have no recognition that they are doing the same thing they are accusing somebody also doing. even worse, they are presenting things contrary to the evidence or counter to the evidence that exists. again, with lack of recognition that that is what they are doing. host: you go back to your own experiences in this idea pushing back the narrative. you write about reporting on swine flu and stimulus money in new york. what were the lessons learned from pushing back? guest: what do you mean? host: pushing back against the narrative. you highlight when you put on the sweatsuit, inc. you encountered. back on-- when you push -- you highlight, the

pushback you encountered. this reporting is what good journalists wanted from the people who worked for them. they wanted to get on the ground and find out what was going on. to the extent that it was contrary to the official story line it was applauded. it got to be in my later years at cvs -- at cvs that even -- at it got harder to do that reporting. powers were pulling strings. boeings the story about and the dreamliner. i was assigned to cover the story of the dreamliner fires.

everybody loves the story and then somebody decides it shouldn't air. that was happening more and more. back in 2014 when i thought the trend was industrywide. journalists are speaking of the same thing. some can't talk about it and give up their livelihood, but this is it problem across the. yep journalists who don't like it and then you have a new breed of journalists that are all in you have journalists who don't like it and then you have a new breed of journalists that are all in. the new journalists have different asked her degrees -- have different master degrees. if they think something -- if , -- say to the right person

i think people have to understand that for these people the role of journalism has been redefined into something different than what we were used to. even when they report something that is incorrect, something really bad, the reason you don't see much in the way of apology or why these reporters continue to get rid seats and get promoted is because their mission is accomplished. if your mission is to further the narrative to sway public opinion, your goal is not to represent the facts on the ground so it is okay if you are wrong because you still accomplish the goal. host: our first call comes from carl he is in berkeley springs, west virginia, republican line. go ahead with your question or comment. old andi am 82 years you are my favorite of all the

news people i watch. i am very surprised that washington journal would let you on for an hour. i grew up watching walter cronkite and that bunch. i remember the very evening saidr cronkite came on and the war in vietnam is unwinnable. veteran i thought this was the beginning of opinion in the news. we are getting more opinions and extent with some news -- mixed in with some news. this laptop they found in delaware, none of the journalists are really curious. they don't want to know what is in it.

if they knew what was minute they would have to report on it so they sweep it aside. ma'am, i want to tell you, you are my favorite and you are the most honest journalist on tv. i record your program every time. host: we will let our guests respond. guest: i don't know what to say that, he is always the correct. -- he is obviously correct. i am kidding. i caught the substitution game, the game we played when we see a story such as the hunter biden laptop. anything about the other side, seems to bes false late if it hurts that site. be curses we should about to question power and authority and look to see what -- ifer investigation

you're neutral and objective we apply that to his under investigation -- to whoever is under investigation. side is attacked into his nice and held to a different standard too often than the other side. i agree with that. host: our guest has been with us eight times, i just look on this program -- i just looked on this program. democrats jersey, line. caller: thank you for taking michael. , i remember you when you were on cbs, was it? guest: and cnn and pbs. caller: it is refreshing to hear you and see you again.

i have comments concerning what has been happening for the past four years if i may present my statements and comments. it seems as though for the last four years we have been divided butonly by mr. trump members of congress on one side of the aisle. that irks me. it irked me when he became 2016.ent in the moment the results came in the following day, the following , i was on a local radio

station. i was a regular caller. is thethe host that he curse of america and it has been proven to be so. host: what the what our guest to address? what i want her to address is the censorship that the president tried to place upon the media. host: that is jim in new jersey. go ahead. i have notguest: studied it from that view. there are plenty who have written about what they think trump has gone -- done wrong. that i instead on topics believe are under covered and underserved.

for my viewpoint, i think the censorship i have seen that the media is responsible for and what i have seen on the internet , what we have seen in the weeks building up to the election is more concerning than what i have seen in the political realm from what politicians try to do which is always the case. political figures try to advance their narrative. it is their job. as reporters, we are supposed to be the equalizer. with reporting narratives and try to be neutral and objective when we are reporting simple facts, fair when we are investigating something to the extent that we can present something that powerful interest are trying to hide. that is what i focus on in my books. host: we have a viewer off our twitter that asks this question saying "i think the president is the one who hates journalism.

news" term -- ring a bell?" my book howced in that was started and by whom which i think is interesting. i point out that donald trump co-opted the phrase which was at the dismay of people who tried to -- most people associate that with donald trump. i think there is a lot to be said for how the media has allowed its self to be used in in a way that i andk is inappropriate changing the definition of journalism in a way that is not good for us. when we do report the facts

fairly, i think it is dismissed. what they canre trust out of us because of the reporting we are doing. host: another question asking about if this evolution of journalism affects more ideological groups than others? i spent a chapter going devolution of cnn. i interviewed insiders who have run news divisions of all that works. of those who describe their leanings with tickly, most of them said they are progressive orlean left yet they were as troubled by the things -- they are progressive or lean left yet they were as troubled by the things i'm talking about. at cnn, we would not have dreamed of inserting our

opinions in news stories. most of our reporting had nothing to do with politics. another consequence of the near to is that too much all you see -- is that pretty much all you see are political stories. there is a lot going on in this who don'tth people have ties to washington, d.c. we had a half hour put it will show at night and then we started one at 4:30 in the afternoon during the election year. other than that, our news was ordinary news that wasn't to people. i also talk about it in a separate chapter on the new york times. it is so disappointing that -- to so many people, including insiders i talked to. there are two chapters talking about those because their downfall has been so obvious.

host: who does a fair job as reporting in the way you would see it? guest: i talked in terms of not entire news organizations in a talk not even in terms of fairness. places like cnn when i worked there, they just don't exist. even people who like their news one-sided, they like to see something on the left or on the right, they still when i talked to them say they would like to have a neutral place they could go where they can also check in and know what they are watching -- they don't have to discounted because the site on a place that might want you to lean left -- because they saw it on a place that might want you to lean left. we need to look for people and reporters at outlets on a particular topic that reports off narrative information that may that -- that powerful interests may not want.

i do talk about some reporters and news organizations who are fair. cbs.tioned david martin at i got recommendations from fellow journalists who talked about those who they see as pillars of objectivity in the face of these trends i'm talking about. host: this is very from kentucky on our independent line. this is something i think the republicans have been ignoring. in the 2016 election, for sick -- 56% of republican voters were over 50-year-old. you can imagine in that for your period how many of those have passed away. -- overther hand, 50%

50% of the democratic voters largender 50 years old, a percentage between 18 and 40 -- 18 and 24. imagine how many of those young people that were 14 years of age in 2016 were 18 years or older in the 2020 elections. it is something being ignored or censored for their just not aware of? -- for they are just not aware of? -- or they are just not aware of? guest: i can't comment authoritatively on that, i am sorry. but i am concerned among young people today that may start watching news now or in the next couple of years, there is sloped slippage of what some of us -- this slow slippage.

of journalism. they have become too -- they have become used to the idea that they will get a one-sided opinion shut down their throat by a media organization instead of neutral information. the second, the censorship trends, they are going to become used to it that this is how it is. make sure we don't see certain information or hear from certain people. that is not the way it was, not the way i grew up, not to wait journalism works or information access should work in america. i'm afraid among young people this is what they know and how things are. host: this is bill in georgia. democrats line. caller: i would like to talk about the defense authorization hasand the fact that trump threatened to veto it on the ground of confederates --

confederate generals and having a forged name after them as well as the 203 liability shield for social media. what is not being mentioned in -- thatl is the fact offshore accounts are going to be required to report the ownership of those companies. this is something i think is being missed in the media and to me is the biggest story in the defense authorization act. guest: -- host: i don't know if our guest wants to tackle that but you can if you with -- if you wish. guest: i'm not familiar with that. sorry, i cannot comment. host: what a fox news on journalism -- what do you think about the influence of fox news on journalism. guest: there is a lot about that

in the book because some blame fox news about what happened with cnn. cnn and yet some of these people i interviewed were in on the decision-making about what msnbc was going to become, about what cnn was going to become. success ofhow the fox news when they came on the scene and catered to a when theyve audience thought the rest of the media was catered to a liberal audience. success -- this is according to interviews -- they figured -- they saw that success -- this is according to interviews -- they thought why not just go all out. why not do something that is unabashedly left and appeal to that audience in the same way

fox news had done? in termsa lot to that of why cnn became the way it did and how the news has become increasingly split because of the success of fox news. all of the news organizations i have talked about and talk about in the book are likewise subjective, whether left or right or perceive themselves in the middle. i think they have all been inundated by these narratives and interests i'm talking about that make sure they stay on point with the topics of the day these special interests want us to talk about. even if you are hearing both sides for your hearing right and are thee that these topics and the language used to talk about the topics any given day is the result of the successful application of the narrative. host: do think that applies to the growth we have seen reported of organizations like newsmax

and one america news? guest: yes, to one extent i would say there are these outbursts of new places people are turning to because they have become disillusioned and don't like the opinions they're getting from the news they are watching. iffy -- if people feel like they're only going to get opinions from news, they're going to shop around for the opinions they would like. there is a market among the same people watching these news organizations left and right. there is a market for old cnn gete they could turn to factual information that goes where the facts lead without having to wonder if that is because this reporter or this new cigna station -- this news organization wants me to say something. host: let's hear from wisconsin, republican line. are on.you

inler: i got a degree journalism in 1985 and back then it was a given that you were neutral and nonbiased. somehow, i'm not sure what pointed, at some journalists got to believe that their mission in life and their sacred job is to be a citizens advocate and inform the people on the viewpoint they may truly believe is in the best interest of the people. it is kind of social engineering. sicke gotten physically over the horrible bias in journalism in the past few months. if you what's to be truly concerned and scared, turned back and forth between fox news

and msnbc. they are like alternate realities. the true reality is somewhere in the middle, probably. i heard someone say over the past six months or so that people need to do their own research. no. the true free press, people who work full-time and have children and are busy should be able to turn into national news and get a halfts and only spent hour a day getting the facts. i need to bring up the fact that it is hard to find it. the bbc is not as horribly highest -- highest. ed.bias journalists started a show called "news nation" out of

chicago from 7:00 to 10:00 every night. every hour they do some repetition. valance, notre " "balance, not bias." your concerne about what has happened with journalism. i say the same thing that people have to do their own research but people probably think that is what you are therefore. there -- there for. some people don't have time to watch full of its and their own events i do watch full in their own conch -- watch full their own context like

i do. i tell everybody, when you see , it has allported these sources and using the same language, maybe it is true but maybe it is out of context or maybe it is not true. all three of those things are equally as possible. the best question to ask when you see something reported is who wants me to believe that at why? sometimes that leads to the more -- whynt story and it is stories have turned out so different than what we have --? --t: guest: i think there are some good things that fill the gap because journalists have not done their job in some respects

on some topics. yep citizen journalists stepping in more often than not. these are often partisan journalists. you're getting information which is good. but if you think it is slanted or bad on the regular news, you can imagine when there are people who have no pretense of a journalism mission, they are there just to get whatever information they want, they have no obligation to be neutral or fair. you are getting news that you have to set yourself, am i getting the whole story? am i getting something i have to discount because it came from left or right? i think citizen journalism has become important. i think like everything else, it comes with a bit of peril because of this information landscape where people don't quite know what side something is coming from or they are not sure if they're getting an opinion or fact. they don't necessarily believe

what they see. host: this is carol from baltimore. hi, thanks to c-span. i would like to challenge your thought that censorship and narratives just started. the 1968lashed back to mme was speakingr and it was cut away from her because the media did not want to see her talking on tv. from an african-american perspective, the narrative has always been biased. another thing is that they always talk about trump because he treats ad nauseam. i would like to go. . a day without a tweet they have to report on it because he is president. finally, the black lives matter, i would like to get your thoughts on how that was presented.

african-americans were saying let us get a chance to celebrate us. , but in thesting immediate it is rioting. to defund they want the police, that is not what we were saying. i would like to get your perspective on how that is covered. guest: two things i would like to address, you are right. the shaping of news has always been there. and i didn't mean to imply that it is no -- it is new because i know this is true. there is always an element of us deciding as news organizations what people do and don't see. most news was not reported. we got to choose or took it upon ourselves to save this is what the public needs to see, this is what they don't get to see. plenty narratives and examples of that. i think it has gone to a new level.

i described why i think it is different now in the books. as part of black lives matter, i think you are right, there was missing a lot of nuance. i am not an expert in this, but there was violence and riots and there were very legitimate movements of people peacefully protesting and trying to draw attention to certain things. you either got one or the other. they were blended together. half people saying this was a violent movement, it was legitimate and born. of certain bad things. the other half saying there was no such thing, it was all made up and it was something different entirely. nuance is lost when one side or the other is trying to pursue a particular narrative. all the information is contrary to whatever narrative you're trying to present, it gets put down the memory hole. it is like you are using ash

doing a one-sided debate and you are only using the evidence for your own side instead of giving a full rounded view of what is going on. host: from pennsylvania, republican line. anthony, hello. would caller: -- i would like to think c-span for having sharyl attkisson on. i think what she's doing is so necessary. the last four years was nothing but narrative. narrative has become fact for some people. they don't distinguish between what they're getting pushed to the fact. that scares me and scares the hell out of a lot of people. what we have to do is figure out how to decouple that from a political cause. i am a news junkie, i love c-span. c-span is very good at trying to keep some balance. the other channels do not.

how do we decouple cnn and msnbc? how do we decouple them from being a propaganda arm from a political party? thank you. guest: even though i am not an expert analyst and can't tilde future, i don't see these news to whattions going back people saw them as they once were. these interests are talk about the tap become entrenched in interests i am talking about that have become entrenched in news, this happened years ago. i think it is more obvious in the past couple of years. i think the solution lies in different platforms where they can be neutral or telefax that are often or to -- foretell -- orthat are mutual

facts that are mutual document nuetral.that are person inhigh-ranking a news organization seeing because of the fear of these organized backlashes on social media or being canceled or being he is thed, he said news man and wants to tell the truth but the businessman tells me to pull the punches. what platform what i have put a story out and got the part formed? platformed. i think people are treating platforms that are unfettered from these interests like they used to.

there are investors that are looking not so much to make where theylooking at can invest money in this kind of platform where news reporting can be done the old-fashioned way. there are journalists looking to do this. there are groups of people working on the problem. i think it will come up with something in the next four years. it is difficult in the meantime figuring out where to get information. host: if you are from twitter says "what you seem to be telling me is that a journalist's responsibility is to report the narrative from each site -- feet side -- each side." -- each side?" guest: sometimes you watch a cable channel or read an article and they will say this side says this and this side says that. you are getting the political talking points from each party,

something they used to have to convince us to publish and we wouldn't. we learned in journalism school when people give you a press release of their talking points, that. is what they want you to know. it may be -- talking points, that is what they want you to know. your job is to find out if it is newsworthy, what the real facts are behind it. this is something i watched happen at cbs, we used to not report the government's line on something. we might attribute the government and then give context to it with the other side or find out parts of it are true. then it got to be a point where you a dish -- where we would just report something as fact because a corporation set it --said it with no journalism applied.

away -- i saw that drift into the system we have now. i think that is troubling. i think it is no better to give talking points on both side. catherine from san antonio, texas on a republican line. caller: thank you for what you do and also for your courage. i think what you have done in spite of what has happened to you personally and even standing and thest rosenstein things you have done is impressive. when you say there are don't even see it as narrative i see it as indoctrination. even what happened in the recent past with trying to convince the general public that our president is a russian asset and

there are people out there that still believe that is true. it seems almost criminal what our media is able to propagate and get away with and also what has recently happened with the election. if you are a journalist but does work for corporate media and you againsto say something their agenda, they will fire you. in light of that, are there any new sources currently available, independent once you would recommend to people? used to be a good example but now they have become -- they propagate opinions and narratives or trying to push an agenda. is there anything you would recommend in your professional

opinion that people could go to? independent journalists or sources? host: thank you. guest: there discussion in the last chapter of "slanted" about that where i recommend news organizations. i say in this audit time, unfortunately it is up to you to find the reporters and the topics -- there may not be one place that reports all the topics that are fair and accurate but one reporter at a place that does. one of the most chilling things that has happened is that glenn greenwald started this organization to make sure there was a news organization that was off the narrative. glenn greenwald has been a powerful voice on these things i am talking about. for people who don't know, he quit his own a news organization when they censored a story he had done about hunter biden.

this is a left-leaning news organization he created to make sure the news could be published in an unfettered way and he had to leave himself. a great sourcend of information we talk about. i mentioned david martin. . i imagine some outlets in general. ushink it is kind of up to to find their own outlets. i will give a plug for my sunday show, "full measure." most of what we do is not political, it is news the old-fashioned way. i go around the world and cover

stories that impact us in a way that people were perhaps seeing years ago. we are not forcing viewpoints done or throat, we are hearing from all kind of people. host: in today's "new york times" there is an op-ed. she starts pressing this "i'm guilty of violating the espionage act. if charged and convicted, i could spend the rest of my life in prison. the u.s. government is prosecuting a publisher under the espionage act. it could set a precedent that would put me and other journalists in danger. alongside the guardian and the washington post, we reported on a classified document from the national security agency provided by edward snowden. are you familiar with the espionage act being applied in this matter? guest: no, but i know there are

attempts to prosecute for the snowden case and i have some thoughts on that. edward snowden presented important information regardless of how he is viewed. he is an example i wrote about in the second book. as anhed in real time important national security matter of what the nsa was doing to americans. i watched as we started covering that story. then as powerful interests that it did not want us looking their through a shiny ball in another direction and we started playing "where is waldo." we said is he going to cuba, is he going to rush her, he's going to leave -- is he going to russia, he is going to be at such and such time.

we were convinced to forget about covering the content of what he exposed. i saw the same thing happened with julian assange. up andted being wrapped led by the nose as news organizations to cover only part of the story about the personality being discredited. there is something to look at there, but we can do more than one thing at once. don't forget about the material being put out there that i think deserves screwed -- deserve scrutiny. host: from virginia, democrats line. caller: i love to watch your show on sunday nights. i found it one night after the news. watched your last show where you were talking about your book and talking about these putting forth personal opinions. you showed clips where they said

donald trump said this and that, you showed what he really had said. they're trying to shut different be justts up rather you whether you are democrat or republican. i think -- whether you are democrat or republican. i think everyone should have their say. another thing i would like to hear you talk about is i have seen the show on the vaccine court. most people don't probably realize we have a vaccine court and i would love to hear more on it and i think people would be surprised to know that taxpayers are footing the bill for these lawsuits. i would like to see you do more that are going

out to different things -- money that is being wasted. guest: those are all areas of interest i have and i will continue to be on them. some of the stuff you're talking about, if you go to my website there are tabs that talk about the fall the money stories you talk about. there is a health and medical to that talks about faxing court, vaccine stories -- vaccine court, vaccine stories. i agree there is too much of some kinds of reporting and not enough of another. there was a book written by alberto martinez who was a bernie sanders supporter. it is best as an analytical thinker, he wrote a book about how much additive context reporting on donald trump was. -- howmuch reporting

much out of context reporting on donald trump was. his argument is that he is not a trump fan but that trump was bad enough in his own right without the media having to make up stories about him which undermines the media's credibility on other topics. people see that they are in an unfair way. you undermined yourself on the reporting you're going to do when people see a slit in your reporting. they may not believe the next thing you are reporting. it is everybody -- the next thing you are reporting. report use that may vary with your own if you have a strongly held view or go out and find information to the extent that it is contrary to the narrative you fought. that is a beautiful thing from

the standpoint of covering a story. you find a more interesting story if you follow the truths of the facts. you write about the coverage of the president and the application of what a lie is. thing anda specific requires a reporter to claim to know the mind of the person who is supposedly lying. when someone gives contradictory information, it could be for other reasons. it is not the place of a journalist to know what is in a person's mind. there are few places where it is appropriate for a journalist to claim that a person lied." guest: this thing of calling donald trump a liar is a new thing. when the new york times did it on a headline, the rest of the press followed suit. is a quote who said this

wonderful thing, the end of objectivity in journalism. it would be like going to a doctor and him saying don't worry about diet and exercise. objectivity and neutrality are fundamentals of good journalism but they work abandoned in the era of trump. i think the worse of the you -- i think the use of the word --lies" -- i point to she hillary clinton said was shot at in osmium. -- in bosnia.

i was with her on that trip and we were not shot. i did not call her a liar because i don't know if she forgot or had something in her mind. the public hears that and then they start to think you have an ax to grind. it is not necessary. --y're perfectly drawing they're perfectly capable of drawing that conclusion if you say such and such happened, this document confirms it. let them draw their own conclusions. we don't have to push something down their foot that shifts our own -- down their throat ships out on credibility. host: michael, good morning. ronald reagan got rid of the fairness doctrine.

when a reporter reports untruths, you can go on air and rebut what is set. -- what is said. -- if waltercrete reported there was a car wreck, there was a car wreck, end of story. let's start left-wing and right-wing propaganda news. guest: i don't know about the fairness doctrine and as a journalist we never talked about it with me as a reporter. i think it is going to have to come from within. the government benefits from one-sided reporting. for them to get involved and dictate how to fix it i'm not sure is the answer. very little good comes from other vested interest who have

donors and people they work for, ultimately. i think that is not the solution. i think it has to come from the marketplace and within. people talk about removing certain liability protections from the social media companies. i worry removing liability protections would give them more incentive to censor more because they say now we can be sued for these things that people say that are untrue. we have to censor more. the true answer would be for them to step back and saying we don't censor anything except that which is legal. you have -- which is illegal. you have the tools to block people and interpret what you see online. now they have gone down a slippery slope and they have taken the view it is. their job. host: -- it is their job.

host: with three books now, is there anything you're looking forward to in regards to what changes in media reporting? guest: i can't imagine i will stop thinking about this topic and writing books. i'm sure there will be more developments in the next four years. ost: her latest work is "slanted: how the news media taught us to love censorship and hate journalism." joe announcer: i will governor kim reynolds holds a briefing on her response to the pandemic.

live coverage begins at noon eastern. later on, president-elect joe biden delivers remarks on the christmas holiday. we have liver marks at 2:30 easter -- live remarks at 230 easter on c-span. atouncer: tonight a look lamar alexander. c-span2 book tv's year end review will start at 8:00 p.m.. marking therograms 400th anniversary of the mayflower's trip from plymouth in 1620 starting with the discussion on the mayflower compact, the set of rules for self-governing by the settlers, tonight at 8:00 p.m. on the c-span works.