mayflower project. he shows us how they use virtual reality to re-create the ship that traveled from plymouth, england to america in 1620. ♪ >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's great that cable television companies in 1979. today we are brought to you by these television companies that provide c-span2 viewers as a public service. ♪ today we are joined by cheryl atkinson. the author of the book slanted, how the news media taught us to love censorship and hate journalism." thanks for joining us. sets -- it's a

trilogy of what i call the death of the news. it has been observed probably by most people who are listening and watching today, but don't necessarily know what is behind it in this book i talk about third what is happening with social media. this trend in social media is born of the same types of political and corporate interest that has controlled news narratives before the focused on social media and internet, because they saw in 2016 the public could still get unfettered access and viewpoints and people, so they decided to figure out how to control the information we see online. pedro: we heard about social media leading up to the election. you are saying before then these trends were happening? sharyl: i can mark the moment 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 from, because the interests that saw him rise in popularity despite the fact that pretty much all news organizations were telling people don't vote for this was off the news that you see on tv and normal print publications. they started focusing on online. pedro: who are the special interests? sharyl: there are many of them. they're not always divided along political and ideological lines. sometimes they are, that is the most obvious thing i think people have seen and put to. -- points 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 big industry 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 viewpoints, they didn't want people to hear certain scientific studies and viewpoints. the tactic i saw the pharmaceutical industry use was adapted by other political interests. pedro: tactics such as what? sharyl: hiring global law firms crisis management firms, llcs tong nonprofits, figure how to influence news from the corporate level as well as getting into the newsroom by lobbying with talking points and other narratives. the next step, i talked about

this in my last book, this multibillion dollar 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 newsrooms. i talked about how we pay these political consultants and analysts six-figure salaries to distribute propaganda and we allow ourselves to be used as tools to distribute the propaganda. if anything they should be paying us, if anything, to have the outlets of the talking points every day to get to these mass audiences. we actually pay them. we have invited them to work and our newsrooms as reporters and editors in many cases. i argue in some instances we are one and the same in these special interests. the firewalls have come down between the news division in the

interests they are supposed to be reporting on. pedro: 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. here is what you say about this concept called the narrative. you start by saying 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 the questions are no no longer questions. so questions are no longer permitted. can you elaborate on that? sharyl: this was unheard of 15 years ago, the notion that a story should not be aired or a 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 in the news are to decide who is right and who is wrong even if we can't know the truth of the matter. even if it is a matter of opinion or debate. then we are to shape what we report to the public by what they see, by making sure we controversialize those who are off that narrative. the scientific studies that are off the narrative. we push instead a one-sided version 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 whether it is true or not. 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 declaring 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 don't have firsthand knowledge. too often on many topics 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 for this very process we engage in. pedro: you add in the book, "to begin with a narrative always presents multisided issues in a distinctly one-sided fashion. any notion of logic is suspended the standards and judgments , applied to the target smeared by narrative never applied to those advancing the narrative or their allies." do you have an example of that? sharyl: you can call it the substitution game, there is more in the book about the verbiage of the narrative, they were

employed specifically against donald trump and his supporters. this is not something said previously if at all. when the other side presents the same sorts of information as you would say without evidence, they are not called on it. when the media dictates news without evidence to claim something is true, they have no recognition that they are doing the same thing they are accusing somebody else of 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. pedro: 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? sharyl: what do you mean? pedro: pushing back against the

narrative. you highlight when you reported on the swine flu, things you stimulus money. with her lessons learned when you pushed back? let me be clear, for a long time it was encouraged to push back from the official narrative. it was appreciative for most of my time at cbs news, when i worked at cnn. this sort of 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 cbs that it got harder to do that reporting. depending on what powerful interests were perceived to be pulling strings.

such was the story about boeing and the dreamliner. i was assigned to cover the story of the dreamliner fires. you can tell when you come up with a great story that is approved by all the producers on,legal department and so that was happening more and more. back in 2014 when i thought the itnd was industrywide, became very untenable. a lot of journalists are speaking of the same thing. most of them can't talk about it and give up their livelihood, but this is it problem across the board. you have journalists who don't like it and then you have a new breed of journalists that are all end, and i would say they are not really classically trained. the new journalists today have different master degrees.

they are there to put their opinions and stories. they get patted on the back by their bosses, if they something outlandish -- this is something applauded today. 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 wrong, factually incorrect, something really bad as we have seen over the past four years the reason you don't , see much in the way of apology or why these reporters continue to get great beats and get promoted is because their mission is accomplished. if your goal 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. pedro: our first call comes from carl he is in berkeley springs, west virginia, republican line.

go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i am 82 years old and i want to tell you 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. it is a pleasant surprise. i grew up watching walter cronkite and that bunch. i remember the very evening walter cronkite came on and said the war in vietnam is unwinnable. as a vietnam veteran i thought this was the beginning of opinion in the news. that is what we are getting now. we are getting more opinions and 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. pedro: we will let our guests respond. sharyl: i don't know what to say that, is obviously correct. i am kidding. i think people have noticed the same i caught the substitution 10, game, the game we played when we see a story such as the hunter biden laptop. not leaks from the fbi, not a peep when this was happening. anything about the other side, even if it is false seems to be leads -- leaked if it hurts that

side. the things we should be curious about, reporters to question power and authority and look to see what is under investigation , try to get our own information. if you're neutral and objective we apply that to his under investigation. side is attacked scrutinized, and held to a different standard too often than the other side. i agree with that. pedro: our guest has been with us eight times, i just look on this program -- i just looked on this program. jim in new jersey, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. sharyl attkisson, 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 not only by mr. trump but members of congress on one side of the aisle. that irks me. it irks a lot of people. it irked me when he became

president in 2016. the moment the results came in the following day, the following morning, i was on a local radio station. i was a regular caller. i told the host that he is the curse of america and it has been proven to be so. guest what you want our to address? caller: what i want her to address is the censorship that the president tried to place upon the media. pedro: that is jim in new jersey. go ahead. sharyl: i have not studied it from that view. there are plenty who have

written about what they think trump has done wrong. what they think he has done to the press. i focus instead on topics that i 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. i talk about in the book. 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 s are trying to hide.

that is what i focus on in my books. pedro: we have a viewer off our twitter that asks this question saying "i think the president is the one who hates journalism. cite the "fake news" term -- ring a bell?" sharyl: if you read my last book you discover the fake news was not an invention by donald trump. i trace to how, when it 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 it's deployed against him as initially, i call it a hostile takeover because most people associate that with donald trump. i think there is a lot to be said for how the media has allowed itself to be used in this equation in a way that i think is inappropriate and changing the definition of journalism in a way that is not good for us.

it undermines the public confidence. when we do report the facts fairly, i think it is dismissed. there have been too many instances where we cried wolf. they're not sure what we -- because of the reporting we are doing. pedro: another question asking about if this evolution of journalism affects more ideological groups than others? are there any other mainstream --ia efforts especially sharyl: i spent a chapter going through the devolution of cnn. i call it the cable narrative network. i interviewed insiders who have run news divisions of all that -- the networks. of those who describe their leanings politically, most of them said they are progressive

orlean left yet they were as itroubled by the same things am. cnn, we would not have dreamed in of inserting our opinions in 1990 news stories. most of our reporting had nothing to do with politics. another consequence of the near -- narrative is all you see on the high-profile news, the same three or four stories and they are political. there is a lot going on in this country with people who don't have ties to washington, d.c. that is what we used to do when i worked at cnn. we had a half-hour political show at night, and that we started one at 4:30 p.m. in the afternoon. other than that, our news was ordinary news important to people. so i talked about the de-evolution in a separate chapter, the new york times. it has been so disappointing to

so many people, including insiders i talked to. what has happened to the new york times is very sad. i spent two pet -- chapters talking about those in particular because their , downfall has been so obvious. pedro: who does a fair job as reporting in the way you would see it? sharyl: i talked in terms of not entire news organizations in a -- i even talk not so much in terms of fairness. these places like cnn when i worked there, they just don't exist. they may come back. 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 they sought on a place that might want you to lean left or right. this.

now, we need to look for people and reporters at outlets on a particular topic that reports off narrative information that maybe powerful interests may not want. i do talk about some reporters and news organizations who are fair. i mentioned david martin at cbs. pete williams at nbc. 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. pedro: this is jerry from kentucky on our independent line. caller: this is something i think the republicans have been ignoring. in the 2016 election, 56% of republican voters were over 50-year-old. a large percentage was the

silent majority which at that time would be 71. you can imagine in that for your -- four-year. how many of those have passed away. on the other hand over 50% of , the democratic voters were under 50 years old, a large percentage between 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, or are they just not aware of that? sharyl: that is not my area of expertise so i can't comment authoritatively on that, i am sorry. one thing you maybe think about is, i am concerned among young

people today that may start watching news now or in the next couple of years, there is sloped wholow slippage of those thought of journalism as we once knew it, they have become used to the idea that they will get a one-sided opinion shoved down their throat by a media organization instead of neutral information. number two, the censorship trends they are going to grow used to 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 -- not the way i think journalism works or information access should work in america. i'm afraid among young people this is what they know and how things are. pedro: this is bill in georgia. democrats line. caller: i would like to talk

about the defense authorization act and the fact that trump has threatened to veto it on the ground of confederate generals and tapping the forge named after them as well as the 203 liability shield for social media. not toughen up on china. what is not being mentioned in this bill is the fact -- that 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. pedro: caller i will leave it there only because i don't know if our guest wants to tackle that. sharyl: thank you for bringing that information up, i'm not familiar with that. sorry, i cannot comment.

thanks for letting us know. pedro: what do you think about the influence on fox news on journalism? sharyl: there is a lot about that in the book because some , many of them blame fox news about what happened with cnn. i thought it was interesting when they criticized cnn on the one hand, and 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. executives that worked in that realm. they trace how the success of fox news when they came on the scene and catered to a conservative audience when they thought the rest of the media was catered to a liberal they saw that success, according to those i interviewed, they

figured why not just go all out? some of the other news ,rganizations will be perceived appeal to that audience in the same way fox news had done? there is a lot to that in terms 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, even after you are hearing right and left, the that these are the topics and the language used to talk about the

topics any given day is the result of the successful application of the narrative. pedro: do think that applies to the growth we have seen reported of organizations like newsmax and one america news? extent yes, to some 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 places they are watching. 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. i still say there is a market among the same people watching these news organizations left and right. there is a market for old cnn where they could turn to get factual information and investigation that goes where the facts lead without having to , wonder if that is because this

reporter or this news organization wants me to say something. pedro: let's hear from wisconsin, republican line. carrie, you are on. caller: i got a degree in journalism in 1985 and back then it was a given that you were neutral and nonbiased. somehow, i'm not sure what happened, at some point 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. i have gotten physically sick

over the horrible bias in journalism in the past few months. if you want to be truly concerned and scared, turned back and forth between fox news and msnbc. or cnn. 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. on -- um, 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 the facts and only spend a half hour a day getting the facts. i need to bring up the fact that it is hard to find it. the bbc are not as horribly

biased as american idiot. 5700 journalists around the called started a show news nation, shown on wgn channel nine out of chicago from 7:00 to 10:00 every night. every hour they do some repetition. their mottoes are "balance, not bias." "face, not opinion. era i: i am from your , share your concern about what has happened with journalism. i say the same thing that people have to do their own research but they are probably thinking that is what you are therefore. -- there for. some people don't have time to watch events in its own context

. like i do. this is this interim. before we have something better. i think the answer is to do your own research, or spend your belief -- suspend your belief. i tell everybody, when you see something reported, it has all 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 -- and why? sometimes that leads to the more important story and it is -- why do that if the initial reporting because somebody turned out to be so different that what we were told initially. asks, what role do citizens play in

circumventing corporate media narratives? sharyl: it is a mixed role. i think there are some good things that fill the gap because journalists have not done their job in some respects on some topics. you have citizen journalists notping in, more often than 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 say to 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 talk about some of those in slanted, but 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. pedro: here is carolyn from baltimore. caller: hi, thanks to c-span. one place i can go to get journalism. i would like to challenge your thought that censorship and narratives just started. my mind flashed back to the 1968 dnc when hammer was speaking 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. biased against us. another thing is that they always talk about trump because he tweets ad nauseam. i would like to go a day without

a tweet. but 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 give us a chance to celebrate us. that is why black lives matter. we are protesting, but in the immediate it is rioting. in the media it is they want to defund the police, that is not what we were saying. i would like to get your perspective on how that is covered. sharyl: 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 new, because i know this is true. even but we had more of a pretense of objectivity there is , always an element of us deciding as news organizations what people do and don't see. there is only a half-hour in the old days for a network broadcast, most news was not

reported. we got to choose or took it upon i have cells to say 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 far as 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. it seems you either got one or the other. they were blended together. half people saying this was a violent movement, it was illegitimate and born of 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 -- 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. i think that was a problem. pedro: from pennsylvania, republican line. anthony, hello. caller: -- i would like to think -- thank c-span for having ms. attkisson on. i think what she's doing is so necessary. we have been living 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 being 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. it seems to be i am a news , junkie, i love c-span. i watch it every day. c-span is very good at trying to keep some balance. the other channels do not. how do we decouple cnn and msnbc? washington times. new york times. how do we decouple them from being a propaganda arm from a political party? thank you. sharyl: even though i am not an expert analyst and can't tilde -- tell the future, i don't see these news organizations going back to what people saw them as they once were. these interest i talk about have become very entrenched in news, this happened many years ago. i think the impact is more obvious in the past couple of years. i think the solution lies in

different platforms where the news is not controlled, where they can be neutral or tell the , without being canceled empty platforms. the control is in the hands of the people that are influencing big tech to make these decisions to engage in censorship. for fear if you are not on the narrative. i quote a high-ranking person in in -- a news organization saying, because high-ranking he says the news man who wants to tell the truth, but the businessman tells me to pull the punches. have if i havell a story out that got deplatformed.

working on thee technical challenge of creating platforms that can't be canceled by these interest where free and unfettered reporting had happened like it used to. investors not so much , to make money, but looking at where can i 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. says: viewer from twitter "what you seem to be telling me , is that a journalist's responsibility is to report the side, shouldm each an actual journalist listen and prevent the facts? sharyl: i am not saying that.

i could be have a lot of reporting from both -- 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 it may be true, it may be partly true. your job is to find out if it is newsworthy, what the real facts are behind it. too often, this is a fairly new phenomenon i watched happen at cbs we used to not report the , government's line on something. the government puts out a press release, we might attribute the government and then give context to it with the other side or find out more, part of it are not true.

then we just got to a where we point would just report something as fact because a corporation --said it with no journalism applied. let's find out if that's true, let's not just what unbridled advertising or propaganda on the news. i saw that drift away into the system we have now. i think that is troubling. i think it is no better to give talking points on both side. -- sides. pedro: here is 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 up to rosenstein and the things you have done is impressive. when you say there are narratives, i 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 a big of 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 that does work for corporate media and you happen to say something against their agenda, they will fire you. in light of that, are there any news sources currently available, independent ones you would recommend to people? the intercept 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? pedro: thank you. sharyl: there discussion in the last chapter of "slanted" about best where i recommend news , organizations. time,k in this odd unfortunately it is up to you to find the reporters and the particular topic. there may not be one outlet you watch that covers all topics in the way you think is fair and accurate but one reporter at a place that does. you point to the intercept. one of the most chilling things that has happened is that glenn greenwald started this organization for the very purpose of making 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 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. he is writing and a great source of information on the topics we talk about. on these topics i like to rely and read glenn greenwald? i mentioned david martin. heat covers pentagon and national security issues. i mention individual reporters, that i mentioned some outlets in general. i think it is kind of up to us 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 several years ago and are thirsty for today we are not , forcing viewpoints down your throat, we are hearing from all kind of people. pedro: in today's "new york times" there is an op-ed. she starts by saying this "i'm , guilty of violating the espionage act. if charged and convicted, i could spend the rest of my life in prison. this is not a hypothetical. right now 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. i confess that alongside journalists from the guardian and the washington post, we

reported on a classified document from the national security agency provided by edward snowden. it goes from there, but are you familiar with the espionage act being applied in this matter? sharyl: no, but i know there are attempts to prosecute for the snowden case and i have some thoughts on that. edward snowden presented really important information regardless of how he is viewed. he is an example i wrote about in the second book. i watched in real time as an important national security implications of what the national security agency was doing to americans. time as wen real started covering that story. then as powerful interests that it did not want us looking their -- there, through a shiny ball in another direction and we started playing "where is waldo." everyday at news conferences, we started saying, where is state?

is he going to cuba? russia? he is going to be at such and such time. we were forgot about -- we were convinced to forget about covering the content of what he exposed. i saw the same thing happened with julian assange. the content became objectionable to powerful interests, we started being wrapped up and led by the nose as news organizations to cover only part of the story about the personality being discredited. fair enough, 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 scrutiny. too often we have fallen down on that part of the job. pedro: from virginia, democrats line. sharyl: i love to watch your show on sunday nights. i found it one night after the news.

i watched the one where you were talking about your book and talking about these reporters putting forth personal opinions. you showed clips where they said donald trump said this and that, you showed the whole clip and what he really had said. i think this has come down -- they're trying to shut different you point up, whether you are democrat or republican. i think it's awful. i think everyone ought to be able to have their say. i don't think you should be shut down by someone playing a trombone to try and drive you out. 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 , i did not, and i would love to

hear more on it. 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 on these grants that are going out to different things -- money that is being wasted. sharyl: 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 follow the money stories you talk about. there is a health and medical to -- thaad that talks about vaccine court, vaccine stories. i agree there is too much of some kinds of reporting and not of another. you talk about donald trump being taken out of context, there was a book written by university of texas professor alberto martinez who was a

bernie sanders supporter. an analytical thinker, he wrote a book about how much additive -- out of context reporting on donald trump was. he counted how many times things donald trump said. 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 reporting in an unfair way. it is not necessary. even if you feel a certain way as a reporter, you undermine yourself on all the coverage you are going to do when people see a slant in your reporting, they might not believe the next thing you talk about even if you are not slanted. it's everybody's benefit if you can get outside of your own head as a reporter.

it's a great exercise, and report views that may vary with your own, or go out and find information, and to the extent it's contrary to the narrative you thought going in, that's a beautiful thing from the standpoint of covering a story. usually you find a more important story if you follow the truths of the facts you are discovering, rather than trying to shape them. host: you write about the coverage of the president and the application of what a lie is a you wrote, a lie is a very specific thing, and short of a concession, requires a reporter to know the mind of the person supposedly lying. when somebody gives contradictory information or makes a false statement, it could be within reason. instances iry few can think of where it's appropriate for a reported a claim that a newsmaker lie. i am reading a war should in, but give some context from the book.

this thing of calling donald trump a liar is a new thing. did ite new york times in that headline they were cheered on by the rest of the press and immerse -- and they were cheered on by professionals who said it was a wonderful thing. the end of objectivity. which i can imagine this is what he is teaching journalism students. it's like going to a doctor and him saying, don't worry about diet and exercise. their fundamentals of good journalism, but they were unabashedly abandoned in the era of trump so he could be coveted a certain way by interests that did not like him. i think the use of the word lies really demonstrates the devolution of the news. it's something i say in the book, i'm sure i have been lied to many times as a journalist. i point to when hillary clinton said we were shot up by snipers in bosnia. i was on that trip with her as a

reporter, we were not shot at. there was a very pleasant landing with little girls greeting us with flowers, but i never called her a liar. i don't know she was delusional, if she forgot or she said she misspoke, whatever the word, i don't know what was in her mind. we were always careful as journalists not to apply that term unless someone admitted it or there was an obvious way that it was true. again, the public hears that and then they start to think you have an ax to grind in that you are pushing one side when you use that language. it is not necessary. they are perfectly capable of drying that conclusion. if you say such and such happened and this document contradicts it, this is my view, let them draw their own conclusions. we do have to for something down their throats that i think chips away at our own credibility. host: independent line, michael,

good morning. ,aller: i have been listening it is amazing to me. had the ronald reagan fairness doctrine. when the reporter reports something you can go on the air and rebut what was said. backu did that, brought the fairness document and stop what i call propagandized news, opinionated news. if walter cronkite gets into the car right, he was driving the car, he reported there was a carrack -- carrack, and of story. bring back the fairness doctrine. host: thank you. guest: i don't doubt you, i don't know about the fairness wetrine, and as a journalist never talked about it, it never came into play with me as a reporter. it will have to come from within. benefits from one

side of reporting. for them to get involved and trying to dig date how to fix it , i'm not sure is the answer. very little good comes from other vested interest to has donors and people they work for and decides this in many cases. i think that is not the solution. i think it has to come from the marketplace. people talk about removing certain liability protections from the social media companies, thatnce again i worry removing liability protections would give them more of an incentive to censor more, because then they would say, now we can be sued for these things that we decided or other people say are not true or are harmful, we have to censor more. the true answer would be for them to step back and say, we don't censor anything except that which is illegal. you have the totals to shape what you need online, you have filters and ways to block

people. it is not up to a third party to be the arbiter of your information and experience. i think now they have gone down a slippery slope. host: with three books on the media, is there a fourth book or things you are looking for going forward as far as changes in media reporting? they practically write themselves. i love to write. that is what i do on my spare time. i'm sure there will be more developments, really interesting and controversial developments. host: her latest work is how the media taught us how to learn censorship and hate journalism. fulloles -- the host of measure. thank you for your time today. >> every day, c-span's washington journal takes your calls live on the air on the news of the day and policy issues that impact you. our annuale feature

authors week series. one hour segment every day with a new author. coming up wednesday morning, princeton university's eddy junior on his new book, begin james baldwin's america and its urgency lessons for our own. and then the columnist and author talks about her recent column about what she describes as an exit is from cities and blue states. watch c-span's washington journal, live at 7:00 eastern wednesday morning. be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. coming up wednesday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, a look at the political career of the retiring new york congressman. on c-span two, book tv's year in review continues with a focus on business and economics. 8:00, the economist offers

his views on politics and history. and on c-span3's american history tv, we mark the mayflower's 400th anniversary in a conversation with robert stone, director of the virtual mayflower project. used as us how they virtual reality to re-create the ship that traveled from plymouth, england to america in 1620. watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. retiring senator lamar alexander was interviewed as his time as a legislator on capitol hill, reflecting on his 18 years serving in u