president's 2022 budget request for the pentagon in front of the senate armed services committee and then at 2:00 p.m., a house homeland security subcommittee examines the federal response to unaccompanied children at the u.s. southern border. also on our website, officials from the irs and treasury department testify on ways to reduce the u.s. tax gap. that is streaming live at noon eastern on c-span.org. coming up, bloomberg law supreme court reporter kimberly robinson on some of the supreme court decisions expected in the next few weeks. at 8:00 a.m., brian stelter, host of cnn's "reliable sources" discusses the new reporting in his 2020 book, "hoax: donald trump, fox news the dangerous distortion of , truth," and we will talk about media coverage at the biden administration with media research center's rich noise.

greg allen, u.s. senator for britain's daily telegraph, previews president biden's first international trip to britain for the g7 summit, plus meetings with boris johnson and queen elizabeth.♪ host: good morning. it is thursday, june 10, 2021. we have a dwindling number of decision days left in the current term of the supreme court. with 22 cases still to be decided, it is expected to be a busy few weeks for the other branch of government on capitol hill. this morning, we began by asking for your view of the u.s. supreme court. if you think the court is too conservative, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call. if you think the court is too liberal, (202) 748-8001.

if you think the court has struck the right balance between the two, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text with your thoughts this morning. that number, (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. please catch up with us on social media. on twitter, it is @cspanwj. a good thursday morning to you. you can start calling in with your view of the u.s. supreme court. a poll on this topic from last fall, before the death of justice ruth bader ginsburg from research, finding some 56% of americans viewed the supreme court as middle of the road. republicans were more likely than democrats to say the court's middle of the road. nearly half of democrats said the court was too conservative compared with 12% of republicans.

we will go through that pole more. we mostly want to hear from you. if you think the court is too conservative, (202) 748-8000 is the number. if you think the court is too liberal, (202) 748-8001. if you think the court is about right, (202) 748-8002. for a look at some of the high-profile cases left in this term, we turn to kimberly robinson, supreme court reporter a bloomberg, joining us via zoom. which of these cases left do you think is going to get the most attention from court watchers in the last couple weeks of the term? guest: most people are waiting on the case on the affordable care act, also known as obamacare. this is one that could take down the entire act. red states are challenging the obama care by saying changes

that republicans made in 2017 and 2018 when they were in charge of congress undermined the supreme court rationale for upholding the affordable care act in 2012, so they say those changes mean, not just the changes congress made but the entire affordable care act must go. we are waiting for that in the coming weeks. host: is that likely to come out on the final day of the supreme court term? guest: we do usually see the most consequential and controversial cases come out the last week of the supreme court term, usually the last week in june. that is something i will wait to see then. this was argued in november, so it could come out any day now, though i think it is more likely closer to july. host: we have seen the supreme

court adding days. can they get through 22 cases in the number of days they have left for decisions to come down? guest: they can. it is a lot. it means we will have multiple days where we have several opinions handed down, but this is really the only thing the supreme court is doing now. during earlier months, the supreme court is also hearing oral arguments. now the judges are focused 100% just on getting out opinion. they find a way to get there by the end of june. host: the affordable care act case, california v texas is the title. take us through other case. guest: this is flying under the radar because it challenges two provisions out of arizona that are not in a lot of other states. the case is going to be important beyond those

provisions and where the supreme court lands on those, in part because the reasoning that the supreme court comes up with is going to apply to almost all voting rights challenges going forward. it is important to have background on this case. it goes back to the shelby county decision, where they struck down one of the major provisions which required states that have a history of discrimination get changes to their voting rights laws approved in advance. people challenging these laws are stuck after they go into effect. there was less litigation about that. now that is the only provision or challengers to challenge these laws under. how the supreme court looks at these issues is going to be important outside of arizona and across the nation. host: just two other cases to touch on mother 22 have yet to be decided.

ncaa v. austin. guest: the first one is part of a long line of cases where the supreme court is trying to balance antidiscrimination laws meant to protect lgbtq citizens with the first commitment right to practice your religion freely. it is a subject the supreme court has been trying to engage and trying to find that right balance. this is one of the cases that is sympathetic to the religious issue here because it has to do with the philadelphia foster care system and catholic social services, which has been involved in the foster care program for longer than the city but the city has said it can no longer participate because it has -- said it will not place foster care children with same-sex couples. that is a tough case for the justices. that is one i expected to be handed down the last week of the

supreme court term even though it was argued in november. host: and the ncaa one? guest: a bunch of sports fans on the supreme court said they had a lot of fun with this one. at issue is whether student athletes can be paid, particularly given that a lot of schools get a lot of money off these programs, particularly football and basketball. the supreme court is trying to figure out how far schools can go in compensating individuals, if they can compensate them at all. host: after the case just settles at the end of the term, the issues that come up our retirement watch and the docket for the next term. take us first to the retirement watch. guest: all eyes right now are on justice stephen breyer. supreme court justices can announce retirement whenever they want but it has traditionally been likely that they do it at the end of the term, often once the supreme

court has handed out all their opinions because it gives the supreme court and president time to nominate someone and the senate time to confirm for the come back in october. october is going to be a big term. we have cases the supreme court has been putting off for a long time, on gun rights, abortion. they still have more they could add, including affirmative action. host: plenty to read about. it is lou berglaw.com -- bloomberglaw.com. now to your phone calls this morning, asking for your view of the u.s. supreme court. do you think it is too conservative, too liberal, about right? alan thinks it is too conservative out of brooklyn. caller: thanks very much.

my reason for saying that has to do more with process than results. that is the way we keep a democracy, by getting results in legislation or in the courts through fair process. what we have now is a court created largely unfair processes going back quite a while. most recently, a president likely could have been indicted but for a rule the justice department had from the 1970's that a sitting president cannot be indicted and a president who is possibly indictable or collusion with a foreign power picked three members of our court. if he is ultimately found to have been truly guilty of any crimes that he now could be indicted for out of office, i would see that all three of his nominees -- say that all three of his nominees should be considered poisoned fruit of a

poison tree. they should be given a chance to step down. otherwise, if there were a way of compelling removal after trump were found guilty of crimes, that should happen. several justices appointed by george w. bush are also suspect because the bush presidency, bush two, began with a question will decision in bush v gore that overturned the process in florida. without that strange decision, which two would not have had -- bush two would not have had the opportunity to appoint alito. host: how do you think justice roberts has done leading the court? caller: i think he is acting like use -- hughes in the 1930's, trying to keep the

extremes between left and right from coming to a head and making clear that the court has a legitimacy problem. he has been able to salvage the appearance of legitimacy but i think ultimately from decisions he has joined in shelby county, and haller, whether on gun rights or voting rights, he is more of an extremist than his appearances would let on. he is not as bad as some of the others. he tries to join a liberal majority on occasion when he sees a possibility he might agree with that. in general, we have a court filled with people who got there because of questionable parts of our past history allowing presidents to put them in office and they otherwise would not be there. host: that is alan out of brooklyn, new york. james is next out of auburn, washington. he says the court is about right in his mind. caller: i say it is about right.

the supreme court, nothing is right and nothing is wrong. abortion could be legal or illegal. you have the dred scott decision. what i'm trying to say is the court is not based on law. it is based on what the judges' ideology is. this is what republicans do and believe in. they know you can legislate. you can pass legislation, but the supreme court and courts can overturn any decision they want to make. that is what mitch mcconnell and republicans now. the democrats do not know that. they do not deal in the supreme court because it does not matter to the liberals. this maintains white privilege, the court does.

minority rule, we are seeing this. this is the reason they are doing what they are actually doing with the courts now, with the voting rights and stuff. they know if it goes in front of the supreme court the supreme court is obsolete. host: but you still think is leaning is about right, not too conservative or too liberal? caller: yes, because any decision being made is not right or wrong. the court is the final decision on anything. any number of conservative judges or liberal judges on the supreme court -- it is not right . that is what i'm trying to tell you. if they outlaw abortion, it will not be wrong but abortion is legal now. it would just be a supreme court decision. host: this is john out of frederick, maryland, saying the supreme court is too

conservative. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i listen to c-span every morning and i appreciate. i think the court is too conservative. that is not even a question. you have h justices, one chief justice, with five of them -- four of them are conservative. john roberts in my opinion is the only guy in the middle. justice thomas -- i just think america, the way the supreme court justices are being selected is not good. if you are choosing -- a president is nominating someone cannot do they feel loyalty to that party -- nominating someone, do they feel loyalty to the party? for the rest of his life, do you

feel loyalty to a certain party? we are destroying the fabric. i know that is how it has been, but things have changed. when you look at the court now, we have roe v. wade, where women feel like we are going to be losing our rights to choose were ourselves because nine people in the supreme court in the land can alter all of that for us. host: you are worried about justices showing loyalty to the presidents that appointed them to the supreme court bench. do you think neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, amy coney barrett have demonstrated loyalty to trump on -- in their time to the bench -- on the bench? caller: i am going to go back to justice thomas. the charade we have in the senate with the selection process -- i have never seen

justice thomas even be talked about because everybody already knows he is going to go with whatever the republicans go with. justice kavanaugh is very obvious. donald trump once a guy who was his back in. look at his track record, voter record. if it is not donald trump in particular, is nt showing loyalty to the republican party -- isn't he showing loyalty to the republican party? host: this from a gallup poll on the same issue. you can see how the numbers change over the years. the dark line here is americans who said the court is too conservative. i pointed to 2005, when chief justice roberts took over the

court and turned it into the roberts court. you can see changes in recent years. that number, taking -- ticking up to say the court is too conservative. this pole ended in 2019. the top line here, the number of people who say it was about right over the years and then that greenline, the number of americans who have said over the years the court is too liberal. you can see that dipping down after donald trump takes office. john is next out of telford, pennsylvania on the line for those who say the court's balance is about right. >> -- caller: thanks for having me. let's get that to the first caller who wanted to get rid of the trump appointees.

the government confirmed these appointees. i do not see how he thinks they can get rid of them just because donald trump was in office at the time. going back to thomas, what they did to this man cannot you do not even recognize him as being a black supreme court judge. they treat him like an uncle tom. lisa liberals have to have their cake and eat it too. didn't they just get away with the great lie the joe biden won the election? caller: the supreme court would not even hear the argument. in pennsylvania, they stole the election. host: john, you say the supreme court balance is about right and you pointed out the supreme court would not take up the issue of the 2020 election. caller: so how can it be too conservative when they would not even take up the argument that the election was meddled with? you know it was meddled with. they want to make this covid drive in.

i voted in person. there was no reason for me not to vote in person. i must've got half a dozen of those unsolicited ballots. i could have broke the law and filled them out like democrats did. host: what would it take for you to believe the election was legitimate? the supreme court which you say the balance is about right declined to take up the issue. what would it take for you to believe the election was legitimate? caller: there was more votes than registered voters in some states. joe biden getting 81 million votes, surpassing not only don trump, who surpassed his voting in 2016, but also beat hillary clinton and barack obama. host: this is joseph out of tallahassee, florida commencing the court is too liberal right now. why do you say that -- florida, saying the court is too liberal right now.

why do you say that? caller: no matter how the court votes, not everybody is going to be happy. this has always been a problem all the way back from when the supreme court voted to take prayer and bible out of the schools. for just the fact that one person overwrite it everyone else in the country. one of the problems i am seeing with it is that either the supreme court decisions that they have to make war that congress has to make, they have to put these issues before they vote on a ballot to the american public and let the public vote so they can go ahead and know where the people stand. if it is not done that way, no matter who is on the supreme court, no matter what the issues are, there will still be problems. from what i understand when i learned it in school, it was a simple truth that our elected

officials represented the american public. that is not true today and i do not know if it was ever true. personally, i think -- everybody is talking about the election and everything. i think the country has to get back to one system to vote. at the same time, people cannot get there, it should be a national holiday where people can get off from work and go. host: on that issue, the for the people act that has so much attention especially in light of joe manchin sunday sankey will not support it, seeks to set federal standards or minimum standards for voting issues in the country for access to polls, for early voting time, a minimal standard that states can then go above if they want to.

do you think that is a good idea , for there to be federal minimal standards that states have to live up to on some issues? caller: this is where the conflict comes. even the questions you ask, there are three ways to call in and that his opinion. i can give an opinion today on one thing and it changes next week. if there was a major issue, like should we have more people on the supreme court, that needs to go to the public. that is how i really feel about it. until we go ahead and allow the people to really be the voice of the people, there will never be a clean, clear, objective way of letting elected officials govern us. host: that is joseph out of florida. talking about the supreme court in this first hour of the washington journal, asking if you think it is too conservative, liberal, about

right. call in as you see fit. an interesting story about the supreme court coming out yesterday. here is the roll call story about it, noting that two key senators want the travel records of supreme court justices part of a look at financial disclosure standards for receipt of gifts or travel or other financial gains by government officials. louisiana republican senator john kennedy asked the justice department and u.s. marshals service for information and documents about the last 10 years of trips for members of the supreme court. the story noted that the supreme court handles protection for the justices in washington that the justices can request security from the marshals service during domestic travel. that letter was sent june 4 and made public yesterday. here is part of the letter.

the senators right that the executive and legislative branch disclosure rules require disclosure of estimated dollar values of reimbursements, require descriptions of meetings and events attended a connection to the reimbursement, narrowly -- and require online publication and access to disclosure. the judicial branch guidelines are less stringent. even those do not formally apply to the justices of the supreme court. as a result, the justices of the highest court are subject to the lowest standards of transparency across the federal government. those members of the senate are looking to change some of that. an interesting story to keep track of. 22 cases left to decide and just six decision days today is one of them. we expect any decisions that

would be handed down today to come at 10:00 a.m. eastern. greg in pennsylvania is next on the line for those who say the balance of the supreme court is about right. caller: i do. let's see what has happened in the last four presidential elections. democrats have won three of the four. what has happened across the country? riots, looting, and it is ok, according to the mainstream media. what part of that scenario -- your first caller was talking about it is not fair, right. so what are the results? i just give you a couple results . what do they want? do they want somebody to say you get everything you want to not give us a list and you got it?

the system does not work that way. it is ridiculous, these people that call in and complain about everything and want everything changed yesterday. you have a constitution. it has to be addressed. if you think it should be completely revamped, you can do it one of two ways, constitutional amendments or convention. so do not just complain all the time to c-span and whatever and then go out and do nothing for a while. the system is the system. if you do not like it, leave the country. as to the supreme court specifically, look at some of the recent decision about same-sex marriage and all that. if you want to complain about the supreme court, complain about this. ginsberg and sotomayor or kagan

officiated gay weddings before they voted, before they voted on the same sex case six or seven years ago. there is no recusal. it is all up to the individual justice. was that too liberal? should the rules have been changed and said just because you participated and an event before the court you need to recuse yourself? i think that is pretty objective. host: i wonder what you think about the transparency issue we talked about before your phone call, that effort to add more transparency to travel and spending by supreme court justices. caller: personally, i am a lawyer. i have been practicing 41 plus years.

i think it is likely some of the justices have been cutting corners intentionally or not. let's do an audit of the pentagon. the stew and audit of the white house. let's do an audit of nancy pelosi. ok. it seems pretty objective. get us the numbers you're supposed to submit to the government so you can get the benefits you get. how about welfare? host: that is greg in pennsylvania. richard at a kentucky says the roberts court is too liberal. why is that? caller: just recent rulings that they denied to take up to questions about irregularities in the election. just ask the question on something as important as the election for president of the united states.

it was just asked of them, look, some funny stuff looks kinda crazy here. could you check it out? they would not even take it up. the supreme court is currently five so-called conservatives. thomas and alito are the only so-called conservatives. john roberts is as liberal as they come. i just -- i am real surprised. there was talk earlier about donald trump collected all these conservatives and everything. who did you think he was going to pick? host: do you think neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett qualify as conservative justices? caller: they are at best moderate. it is something about the supreme court. most times they go for conservative use with families and their life. when they get on the supreme court all of a sudden they move back to the middle.

host: do you think donald trump should have done better at picking his justices? caller: no, i think barack obama should have done better to pick his justices. kagan, sotomayor are absolute -- i will not go there. host: that is richard in kentucky. jim says the balance of the court is about right. good morning. jim, are you with us this morning? caller: i am peering i am sorry. good morning. i listened to three calls while i was on hold. thank you for taking me. it is a beautiful day. i always watch your show in the morning with my coffee. i enjoy it. i have done it for years. very quickly, and listening to the prior comments, i was going to say a couple other things. i changed my idea of what i am going to say. i am 58 years old now.

i was born in washington, d.c. and have lived here my entire life, love my state, my country, love washington, d.c.. i do not think i could live anywhere else. i have seen a lot, in other words. i think what we have -- our supreme court has been treated very balanced over the years and it has been just about right. a little leaning one way or the other is the way it goes. like the bible and the christian faith, you cannot interpret the constitution. they have to go by -- it is not like my interpretation. they have to follow that guideline. that is all they can do. when they start straying one way or the other, we are in danger. that is ok a little bit, perhaps. we now have, and i am born in

1963 -- i am seeing a generation -- i'm a mother cannot love children, love youth, love everybody. i love elderly. here's the thing. i am seeing, and i have tried to brush this off, i am seeing a generation -- i did not want to believe it because i tend to look on the soft side of life, on the romantic side of things. now, this certainly could not be. he is really kind. real quickly, what i see -- i will say this way. when people ask you, would you want another of you come another kim, a room of kim's? would you want nothing but kim's opinion or whatever i have in my mind? now. we would start killing each other literally. there has to be difference.

everybody has to be listened to and has to be balanced. they have to go by the constitution. that is pretty much all i have to say about that. host: it is just after 7:30 on the east coast. getting review on the u.s. supreme court on one of the dwindling numbers of decision days left in the october 2020 term, the end of the october 2020 term. the october 2021 term begins later this year and we are getting review of the balance of the supreme court. do you think it is too conservative, too liberal, about right? just a few news stories to update you on my fighting out yesterday that president biden as the new york times puts it, under pressure to address the global surge in coronavirus will announce as early as thursday that his administration will buy 500 million doses of the pfizer vaccine and donate them among

about 100 countries over the next year. the white house reached a deal just in time for muster biden? -- esther biden's -- mr. biden's european trip. that is the front page story of the new york times today. front page of the washington post, the lee picture there, president biden addressing u.s. air force personnel and their families at an air force base in suffolk, england, speaking ahead of a three-day summit with a group of seven nations. today, he is set to meet with prime minister boris johnson. we will talk more about that meeting later. one other story on a topic we have talked about on this program, before a government report released yesterday concludes federal police did not clear protesters from lafayette park the white house so president trump could walk to a nearby church for a photo off. the report released wednesday

says u.s. park police at the secret service determined it was necessary to remove protesters from the area in and around the park last june so contractors could install security fencing. federal police did not learn of president trump's plan to walk through the park and examine damage until hours after they had begun planning for the security fencing and contractors had already arrived in the park. that is according to that report from the inspector general, the interior department inspector general. we will talk more about that later. those are some of the main news headlines we are following. back to your calls about the supreme court, valerie says the court is too conservative. why do you say that? caller: i missed c-span books and that is going to lead to what i am going to say. i read this year or last year

supreme inequality, a nonfiction book about the u.s. supreme court in the past 50 years. i returned it to the library the day ruth bader ginsburg died. this is the most pro-corporate court we have had under justice roberts. the most. they have overturned state decisions on lawsuits for fisherman in alaska getting money from oil spills. we think about all these huge decisions but we do not hear about a lot of the ones, the small ones that really affect us on a daily level. it has gotten much more politicized. i do not know what the answer is. if they overturned the affordable care act it is going to be a problem in this country and i do think they have tried

in their interpretation of the constitution because the law is complicated and can be interpreted in different ways. host: the court certainly had the opportunity to overturn the affordable care act and did not. caller: and they did not appear it has been law for 11 years and they accepted another case. host: so you think they will this time. caller: i have no idea. i do not think they will because i think the court is conscious of the weight of his decisions. i think it tries to keep the country happy in its own way because it is political. you cannot say it is not political, they are just justices. if so, there would not be a federalist society. i hope that they managed to maintain the balance that they

have where people still have faith in it. host: that is valerie this morning. you mentioned the affordable care act, california v. texas is the case to watch for that. we talked about the democratic national committee case on voting rights, a case on religious freedom. and an antitrust law case. this is mike in minnesota, saying the balance of the court is about right. go ahead. caller: i was not calling to say anything about the court. i have given up on our government as far as right and wrong. they do not seem to know how to pick anything anymore. host: stick with the court because i have a lot of callers who want to talk about the court and that is our topic this hour. matt in maryland says the court is too conservative.

caller: you mentioned something earlier about the closure lafayette park. what was it you were saying? host: in inspector general report yesterday said the removal of protesters was a planned removal so contractors could install security fencing. they were not removed to create a photo op for president trump. that was the findings of that inspector general. caller: i was down there. they were not removed for that day and it was not a process. what happened was they removed the people so that trump could march in and make his speech. i was out there. what they are talking about is they are trying to confuse or misinterpret.

trump's little speech out there was only for an hour or so. host: why were you there that day? why did you think it was important to be there? caller: i protest in front of the white house regularly and in front of congress. host: still during the reppo club as well? -- biden administration as well? caller: yeah. host: what is the latest issue you protested on? caller: most of it was trump through the trump administration , but what i was going to say about the supreme court was that i believe the supreme court, the purpose of the supreme court is misunderstood by the parties. one thinks the supreme court is a toy used for their control. for me, i think it needs to be and should be insisted that it

is a bipartisan operation that does not favor anyone and parties should not be able to play with it. that is all i had to say. host: that is met in maryland. this is linda from georgia. i wonder how many of the supreme court decisions affect us personally. most do not affect me at all. it is more ideology than anything else. this is. on facebook. your supreme court is constitutional. it is your perception. >> not conservative enough but the justices should not be political. stand by the constitution and bill of rights. kenneth saying i am unsure why the majority of rulings are not unanimous. there are way too many 5-4 at a 6-3 rulings. and there is nothing but conservative judges with a mission to impose evangelical religious views on this country.

ralph says the roberts court is too liberal. why do you say that? caller: we have to go back to 1976 california to investigate lawrence v. the state. there is a lot of misinformation. host: what do those cases have in common? caller: so, in 1976 california -- i forgot the actual name of the case, but nobody really paid attention to it because it was including the supreme court. it had to do with the lgbtq rights. it was a pro sought a meal law, literally saw to me -- it was a

pro sodomy law, literally sodomy . two thousand three, only justice clarence thomas was one of the only justices that stood up and said this is wrong. we cannot force this on people. everybody kind of ignored it. we all went along. now people are losing their jobs if they oppose that kind of lifestyle. i think there is a lot of hypocrisy in the media and the justice system as well ignoring that. host: that is ralph in texas. rich in new jersey says the court is too conservative. caller: i think it is too conservative. the supreme court is not so supreme. they have let the voting rights act be weekend.

they had the -- what do you call it? the other one. the -- i forgot. i am nervous. you have two people sitting on the court right now that have problems with women before they got on the court. they should not be there right now. and citizens united was the one i was thinking of. these two decisions, the voting rights act and citizens united, very conservative principles pushed by the court. the other thing is the court will not take up gerrymandering. that is a big problem in the united states. for some reason, they do not want to touch it. host: ronald in minnesota says the court is too liberal. caller: yes, i remember back

when brock hussein obama -- barack hussein obama's first state of the union address and nine justices sat in front of him. justice roberts said that is not true and he was harassed other media and obama condemned him. from that day forward, justice roberts voted every way barack hussein obama wanted him to. now we had this 2020 election, all this stuff on fraud, all this evidence, sworn statements, video, security cameras, and chief justice roberts decides what cases they will look at. he even said i am not going to

take this up. justice thomas said, how can we expect our u.s. citizens to trust our voting system when we will not even look at the evidence? host: that is ronald in minnesota. kathy in louisiana says this court is too conservative. caller: i must've called and on the wrong line. i do not think it is conservative enough. it does not matter how many conservatives are placed in the supreme court. the conservatives will always be disappointed because they will never be activists. they are always going to rule on the side of the law. conservatives would like them to be more active, but only the liberals would be activists. i wanted to enforce the rule of law -- i want it to enforce the rule of law. it is not liberal, not conservative. it is the rule of law.

that is all they are supposed to do. we are the only country in the civilized world that will allow abortions up to nine months. there is no way that is civilized. i cannot believe this country is there, but our supreme court has allowed it to happen, i guess. host: just about 10 minutes left in this first segment of the washington journal and asking your views of the u.s. supreme court on this decision day, expecting if decisions do get handed down today they will come at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. there are six decision days left, including today, on the calendar. or could be added at the end of the month into early july. 22 cases left to decide in this term of the supreme court. one of those cases, ncaa v.

auston, having to do with payments and college athletes. the issue of paying college athletes came up yesterday on capitol hill. this was a story from today's "the washington post." college athletic leaders urged bipartisan action. with only weeks before some state laws take effect, senators appear divided over how quickly to act and what federal legislation to should look like, leaving the ncaa potentially on his own -- its own as conferences try to navigate the shifting landscape. this is an exchange yesterday between senator ted cruz and the ncaa president on congress's potential role on the issue. [video clip] >> as this hearing has discussed, states are moving quickly to establish their own frameworks for name, image, and

likeness. you state in your written testimony that conducting collegiate athletics among a patchwork of state laws is untenable. why do you believe we need a federal law to address this issue? >> thanks for the question, senator. this is one of the cruxes of the debate in front of us. there seems to be at least among members who have spoken enteral agreement that a single or -- having a singular policy at the federal level will allow all students across the country about whether they have a state law or do not got to be able to take it vantage of these opportunities. starting july 1, there will be a dozen or so depending on what happens in states where student athletes will be able to monetize name, image, and likeness. there will be 35 or so that will

not be able to do that. we will have a situation where schools in other states will not be in the position to be able to recruit as effectively. student athletes in many states will have different standards that they will be operating under. the only way we can get a reconciliation of all of that is by having a single national model. host: that exchange, part of the hearing yesterday. if you want to watch it in its entirety, you can do so. back to her phone calls asking you if you think this supreme court is too conservative, too liberal, or just about right. if you say too conservative, (202) 748-8000. if you say too liberal, (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8002 if you say about right. your calls for the last 10 minutes of this segment.

stephen and connecticut, go ahead. -- in connecticut, go ahead. caller: i do not follow every supreme court issue. i want to say the federal judiciary on this last election, i was really proud of. robert setting the tone and from the supreme court down, i was actually shocked how unified the judiciary was. i am concerned about authoritarianism not only in this country but across the west . host: why did it shock you? did you have an opinion otherwise that the court would bend on some of these issues? caller: we are all human beings,

yeah. i was shocked that the conservatives and liberals -- the judges, whether they swing left or right, all agreed that the arguments were not up to par . the merits of the case were not there. if they did not, i think this whole experiment of democracy would have slid off the edge. i think the court might have to hold the line again. i do not think this is going to stop for a while. i am encouraged by the roberts court that way. i am sure there are a lot of supreme court decisions i am not going to agree with. it is just the way life is. on that one thing, the last

election and holding the line, all the federal judges from the roberts court down to the lowest court, that was very impressive. host: i wonder what you think the supreme court in the next term will pick up the divisive issue of abortion in this country. whatever the results of that decision, what you thing they will mean for people's faith in the court? caller: i'm not a lawyer, but following the laws of the land that have been in for many years , almost 50 years of that, i think if they throw away that it is going to create a lack of faith in the process.

whether they say they want changes or not, i think certain tenants in rural -- in law -- they should go along with what has been established and not try to overturn it. host: this is nicholas out of phoenix, arizona, saying this court is too conservative. tell me why. caller: yes. good morning. i feel because of the last two appointed judges it was kind of a sham how they rushed amy, especially when we were trying to deal with the covid issues. it was when the virus was big and the whole country and we were trying to deal with that

issue. it was a sham, how they rushed her aunt the end of obama's presidency, congress was a republican congress, right? so they held. host: so you're concerned about those -- why are you less concerned about neil gorsuch? caller: i do not know much about him. host: that is nicholas in phoenix, arizona. tony and santa fe, you are next. -- in santa fe, you are next. caller: too conservative, way too far right. too unconstitutional.

i believe there is some treason going on under citizens united. they usurped the constitution. they basically legalized corporate suicide but for the individual they are antiabortion. then we have amy coney barrett, who would take history back 400 years. how about another 600 years dr. martin luther -- back to martin luther for freedom of religion? and their institutional racist doctrine of discovery. that is where our route of institutional racism comes from. host: a few more comments from social media and our text messaging service. this is john in michigan, saying the court should look and act like the country. we are not conservative anymore is what john says. forcing citizens to fight

against right-wing beliefs and conspiracy theories wastes time. it really varies from case to case. two opinions were unanimous. other rulings get brought up, but the viewer saying gorsuch and thomas ruled in favor of some of these rulings. this from william in connecticut. the supreme court will do what is right for america, no need to pack the bench from either side. and one more in virginia, georgia saying i view the current supreme court as being about right. the conservative majority respects the constitution and will make decisions following the constitution. i worry democrats want to load the court with leftists who want to make laws versus interpret the law. taking your phone calls, time for a few more this morning if you have them. it is (202) 748-8000 if you

think this court is too conservative. it is (202) 748-8001 if you think it is too liberal and (202) 748-8002 if you think the court is just about right. a couple other stories we have been tracing over the course of their lifetime this one several years we have been following, but news about it yesterday. the developer of the keystone xl pipeline announced it had pulled the plug on the project, citing president biden's decision to take back the cross-border permits, bringing the battle over that major infrastructure project to an end. tc energy said it decided to abandon the extension which would have carried crude oil from alberta to nebraska after a comprehensive review of his options. republicans reacted by renewing criticism of mr. biden for pulling the permit, which president trump had approved.

that is a story on the front page of the washington times today and then this story from the washington post focusing on the trip, the biden administration trip overseas, the story focusing on boris johnson and his role. johnson aims to smooth the g7 tensions as he hosts the summit in great britain. if you want to read that story, it is in today's washington post. just a few other headlines we are watching today and we will talk more about later today. this is tim in north carolina. why do you say to my conservative? -- too conservative? caller: it is too conservative for the most part with the voting act decision a few years ago. that was incorrect. every now and then, they get it right. every now and then, you see

unanimous decisions. i was impressed with the supreme court in 2020 when they correctly did not want to take up all those election challenges cases because they did not have to. for the most part, they do get things just right, but every now and then, when they really screw it up, it is because of being too conservative, host: more to discuss this morning including up next, joined by brian stelter, host of cnn rs, a new reporting in his book, “hoax: donald trump, fox news, and the dangerous distortion of truth." and later, rich noyes from the media watchdog group media research center will join us to discuss the media coverage of the biden administration. stick around, we will be right back.

>> coming up today, fbi director rest of ray is before the house judiciary committee for an oversight hearing, that is not at 10:00 eastern on c-span. in the afternoon, our live coverage continues with president biden holding a news conference in cornwall, england ahead of the g7 summit being held this weekend. on c-span two, the senate returns at 10:30 a.m. eastern to consider judicial nominations for the district of new jersey and the d.c. circuit court of appeals. on c-span3 at 9:30 a.m., defense secretary lloyd austin testifies on the presidents 2022 budget request for the pentagon in front of the senate armed services committee. then at 2:00 p.m., hayes house homeland subcommittee examines the federal response to unaccompanied children at that u.s. southern border. on our website, officials from the irs and treasury department testify on ways to reduce the

u.s. tax gap, that a streaming live at noon eastern on c-span.org. >> landmark cases explores the stories and constitutional drama behind significant supreme court decisions for the next several weeks, watched two episodes from our series. on sunday at 9:45 eastern on c-span, new york times, the united states better known as the pentagon papers were nixon used executive authority to prevent the new york times from publishing top-secret documents on u.s. involvement in the vietnam war. the court's ruling protected first amendment's rights. watch landmark cases sunday night at 9:45 eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or listen on the radio app. >> washington journal continues. host: c-span viewers are familiar with brian stelter, host of cnn's reliable sources,

author of “hoax: donald trump, fox news, and the dangerous distortion of truth." i want to get to that book available this week on paperback at first, can you explain the headline that on the front page of today's new york times, that newspaper, cnn lawyers silenced as a reporters email. n good to be with you. --guest: we learned that the new york times was subject to a gag order, new york times lawyers were not allowed to communicate with the newsroom about a leak investigation that was ensnaring reporters. what we did not know last week was that cnn, where i work, was also under a gag order, that the top lawyer at cnn was under a gag order imposed by the government last year, last summer, by the trump justice department because there was a leak investigation that was trying to snoop on the phone and email records of cnn correspondent barbara starr.

there was an attempt to get a hold of her email records because the governor -- government wanted to know who she was emailing in 2017. here we are in 2021 finding out the government was imposing these extreme measures on news media lawyers, it really is almost unprecedented. i understand in cases of national security and state secret that these measures are sometimes used, the gag orders are sometimes applied, but to hear about a gag order against a new york times and cnn is outrageous, it has been widespread condemnation from media advocacy groups and we know that next week, next monday, representatives from cnn and your kind and washington post will meet with merrick garland to talk about the rules of this road. president biden has vowed that secret snooping on journalists will not happen under his administration. host: that meeting with merrick garland, if you are in that meeting, what question would you

put to the attorney general? guest: we need to know more about the past, we need to know more about these gag orders and why they were applied and whether there were trump white house pressure, is it a coincidence that three of the news outlets that trump despised the most were also the three news outlets that were targeted in this leak investigation and for -- journalists were not targeted, it was government lakers being investigated. these outlets were pursued in their records were siphoned out as part of the leak probe. we didn't know about more what happened in the trump area. going forward, will these new roles, biden pledged not -- pledged not to do that, or the rules be codified, put into the equivalent of loss so this does not go on in the future. host: on what happened in the trump years, according to your book, "hoax," it is out in paperback this week, for those of you who do not catch it in

hardback, why should they pick it up this week on the what will they learn? guest: i did not plan it this way, and i had to really rewrite a big portion of the book and the reason is because the world -- the country changed so much in the last nine months. when i was finishing the first edition of my book, i was in the same situation that a lot of trump era authors were in. we did not know the ending yet, we did not know if you would be reelected. it turns out trump lost the election and we know he lost and that means fox also lost the election. fox lost as a on right wing to be viewed at came back with a vengeance and moves further to the right and we can see that when we are talking about their program makes decisions. i added 12 new chapters, i went overboard and what wrote 20,000 words. -- i went overboard and it 20,000 words.

i think you cannot understand all of that without understanding the power of the media as well. host: 20,000 new words on a book that as i understand was 95,000 words to begin with. guest: they are good words, interesting words i hope, but honestly, i think this is a story i think in some ways, i written the first book about the riot and the aftermath, i wrote it on january 6 writing about the riot, about kevin mccarthy calling into fox news because donald trump was not taking his plea seriously. we called trump to a favorite network to persuade him that way. host: we are talking with brian stelter, here's what we split this bowlines -- how we split the bowlines, -- phone lines, (202) 748-8001 for the mountain and pacific timelines. fox news, (202) 748-8002.

you can go ahead and start calling in, we will get your quality in a second, but for those of you trying to understand the editorial decision making at fox news, which should they know about fox news leadership and its ownership? guest: i describe it as a series of fiefdoms rather than having a strong top-down leadership structure. the shows operated independently and in some ways, that is good, that can be a good thing when a host has a lot of autonomy to go in any direction they want. that is certainly what i appreciate at cnn having autonomy. where autonomy and a lack of leadership can be a real problem is for example when there are elections -- election dials -- election denials. the people in charge are the father and son, they have a hands-off approach, they want the machine to keep printing money and they are not interested in the content and editorial. that can be ok, but not in a

situation where there are voter fraud lies and confusion being spread about who won the election. right now, i think fox news is in a growing pains stage of its existence, about 25 years and, where -- 25 years in where it is rebelling. it does not have a strong leadership and as a result, it is a fiefdom. host: how has the leadership responded to challenges on the right to fox from newsmax tv from when network? guest: that is a big part of the additional hoax, until november 3, until election day, fox is the undisputed king of right-wing tv with the beating heart of the gop. it still is today, but it has competition. there was a reading surge after biden was named president-elect. some fox viewers did not want to believe biden won some -- won,

where trump was not being called a loser. newsmax did have a sudden rating surge, one american news as well according to other data. newsmax has come back down, one american news not nearly as big as the fox news. fox news is still the beating heart of the gop and i believe they were able to win the respect by running further to the right, by appealing to the activist trump base and by covering less news and having more opinions about them. host: you be shocked to learn that i have nine bowlines that i can see at my desk and all of them are lit up. we will get right to the calls. pat, dallas, texas. you are on with brian stelter. caller: good morning. i had to call in because i think cnn is so liberal and i think fox is great. as far as the elections, i am

glad that biden won although i am a conservative. i did not want trump to win. -- win a second time, but i watched fox news because i feel like they are -- cnn, i cannot watch you. i wish i could. and msnbc, they are worse than cnn. and i am not -- i am a conservative, but i am not far to the right. so, that is my comment. y'all have a good morning. guest: thank you. i appreciate your comment and i hope you'll give me a chance in the future. i think it is important that cnn cover all of the news, not from a liberal point of view, not from a conservative point of view, but from a reality-based point of view, it is our job, if we fail, we want to know and we

want the feedback. i sometimes give out my email address on tv because i want viewers to know that if you think we are getting it wrong, tell us, tell us what to do, my email address is bstelter@gmail.com. i think it is important that we be reality-based, not left or right. i think there was a tough coverage on cnn of the vice president trip to guatemala and mexico. there were tough questions about some of stumbles on her trip and so i do not view that as covering it from a left or right, i think that is what we should be doing. host: candace city, kansas, gordon, you are next. caller: i would like to ask brian, on national television, admit he and his network are a bunch of liars about donald trump. guest: can you tell me the lie? what lie? caller: the lie is that he

cleared the protest out so he could to be there -- he could be there. that is a lie that you told. i cannot -- host: that is gordon. brian stelter? guest: the inspection general report is a big story we covered on air and -- about the clearing up lafayette park. this report does contain reductions, there are still questions about bill barr's role and others. what we have to do is cover the news as it evolves and recognize that stories are complicated and always keep changing. very hard for me to sit here and argue that what president trump did that day was ok. walking across over there, having a photo op in the midst of an important peaceful protest. do you think you did the right thing? i respect that. host: uncovering the news as it evolves, talk about the speculation about the origins of

coronavirus? guest: that is another interesting example because we do not know the origins of coronavirus. we may never know that official -- we net -- we may never have a 100% answer. the dominant theory in the scientific community was that it was a natural origin and there was a lap leak theory that is getting more attention recently. but we are seeing is not new evidence, it is just a reevaluation of how murky the evidence is, how murky this question is. and china's defensive crouch and lack of access in china has raised more curiosity about that latter theory. it is like they are trying to hide something. this is an example of the news -- there so much in the news world, it is not a black or white, it is in the gray, in the middle. it is important for all of us,

viewers -- to recognize that and know that it is an evolving story. host: do you think a change in the demonstration in the u.s.-made that reevaluation more possible? guest: perhaps. i have not spent a lot of time covering this issue, so others are more knowledgeable about it. i think president trump, because of a volume of untruth, this information over the years, -- misinformation over the years, was trusted less. in the same way when i go to the grocery store, someone tried to rip me off and i stop trusting that person, same thing with the president. he lost the trust of the majority of the american people by 2020, so when he was talking about a lap leak theory, he was dismissed by many people. now, we see president biden saying the intel community is working on this, stating it closely and that is a good thing.

this conversation reminds me about carl bernstein's line when he often says on cnn, -- what we are seeking everyday is the best obtainable version of the truth. that is the goal, it is a process and i think when we view it that way, it is hopefully earning us more trust rather than losing people. it helps us win people by saying we are trying to get to the truth, we need your help to do that, we are not perfect but we are trying our best. host: the line for fox news viewers, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes. caller: mr. stelter is the biggest administer of misinformation and i'm a news junkie. this gentleman told the american people in his news administration which he has control over for four years that there was a rush occlusion and actually, -- was russian

collision and after investigation, there was zero collusion from the trump administration and russia. but he is such a bipartisan, what you call him? he made the statement a few minutes ago that he is -- the stories are always evolving. his stories, absolutely evolved. host: brian stelter? guest: thank you for the feedback, i appreciate it. i think it is important that we all focus on what we do know to be true. the ties between trump and russia are significant, they were significant, it was a really important story, there is evidence of collusive behavior, of willingness to collude, there are still more information coming out now, even though trump is out of office. i respect your opinion, if you do not believe there was collusion, i believe that we went through impeachment processes, we went through all of these processes i learned a

lot about shady behavior, unethical behavior, etc. it is a debate that will go on for the rest of our lives. i think what is a most important is at cnn everyday or at nbc or the new york times everyday, we just try to get what is true, acknowledge when we misstep, we run corrections, i think that ultimately is the dividing line in media between outlets that try to get it right and correct themselves when they are wrong versus outlets that do not give a darn if it is true or not and as long as we stay on that left side, not liberal on the left side, but on the side where we care about the truth and try to get it right, i think that is what the american people should deserve and by the way, when i make a mistake in my stories, in writing about media, business and we have to run a correction, i do not feel ashamed about that. we are not usually embarrassed about that. corrections make a stronger and healthier because it shows that we are willing to re-examine them are willing to fix it and

willing to make sure we learn from our mistakes. i suppose in that way, the same thing i teach my daughter, to learn from your mistakes and make sure you do not do it again. host: the caller said you control cnn. guest: i'm glad that you mentioned that. that is very far from the truth. i tell you -- i will tell you helps you networks, we have thousands of staffers, dozens of anchors, i have a lot of control over my hour on sunday morning, in my executive producer work together to book a guest and come up with a topic and i write the scripts and i'm responsible for every word and every banner and every question and you should hold me accountable when i screw those up on my hour. i also try to have a bit of influence the rest of the time, i said it -- i send in my ideas. cnn has thousands of staffers, a strong management team and they are the ones in control. i have to say, i think the viewers are in control a lot of the time as well, not because of

ratings, but we want to know what you believe, what you are you interested in, what you care about -- what you are interested in. i'm grateful for the calls, feedback is important. host: savannah, georgia. caller: i was just wondering if you still feel like michael is the greatest thing in the world and should run for president of the u.s. and my suggestion is, whatever cnn says, do the opposite and you will be fine. guest: thank you for the call. let me describe what you are referring to, you are describing a right-wing meme about me and michael several years ago. i almost forgot how to say his name, it has been long. everybody remembers from early on in the trump years. i had him on the show several years ago and one of the questions i asked him, i said to him, i think about running for

president? that was a crazy idea out there at the time. he was really good at interviews and getting in front of the camera and controlling the narrative about the client and the story. i think what president taught a lot of people is that politicians these days have to be media masterminds and certainly, donald trump was and in some ways it still is. he knows how to get attention and we live in an attention economy. he knows how to get attention also. he has become one of trump's nemeses out there and i asked this question about -- for about 15 seconds and he moved on. that is the 15 second moment on tv that gets snipped and clipped and shared becomes a meme in right-wing media, people like sean hannity and others play it on tv and i get spread on websites and it becomes an attack point make fun of people like me out of context. stripped of any context i shared.

that is an interesting example, you say, do i think he is the greatest thing? i do not even know how to spell his last name, but in your mind, you think i am really into him. that is an interesting example of this distorted media world we live in today where a 15 second moment on cnn, something that happened on a random sunday morning becomes a meme and a narrative that actually does not really reveal anything. i take a point that i think it is significant to show that if you do not watch cnn, you might only think of our worst or stupidest moments. i remember one day on cnn, i was alive on tv, covering a snowstorm, and i fell down the stairs on live tv. it was my most embarrassing moment on tv. a couple of my friends still make fun of me for it and use it against me if they want to tease me. if you do not watch cnn, all you're going to know is that. are the moments when we fall down the stairs. i would encourage you to give us a chance and see what we are doing the rest of the time

because for most of the time, i am able to walk down the stairs safely. host: on the media world we live in, don on twitter was questioning, what is mr. stelter's opinion on news verse opinion like on fox or cnn. guest: in hopes, i made the case that fox is moving right and they reduced the hours of news and that is measurable. as a newscast on one side, a top show on the other end fox has fewer newscast and more talk. fox has fewer bureaus, less of a news infrastructure group, not as many people -- i think that a bad thing for conservatives and the gop because we need more news coverage from fox in order to let conservative america know what is going on in a way that is trustworthy. i think this is an issue across the media landscape. cnn has programs that are like mine that our discussion programs, analysis programs and

we have a lot of newscasts or easy correspondence in the field doing life reporting. we have a mix of that and it is certainly true in the trump years, we leaned more on perspectives on point of view, sometimes on commentary, you think about all of the anchors now, they look straight to the camera and deliver monologues, that was a technique in the trump years to cut through the noise and lies and smears and get to what is true. i think those formats are continuing in the biden year. they are a way to communicate to the audience. i do not view those as opinions, i view those as analysis, perspective, people can use different terms and what is most important, are we staying connected to the facts, are we staying connected to what the newsroom is revealing and telling us. host: about 20 minutes left with brian stelter. the host of cnn's reliable sources, the author of the book,

“hoax: donald trump, fox news, and the dangerous distortion of truth." out in a new addition in paperback -- edition in paperback as of tuesday. if you want to join the discussion, (202) 748-8000 in the eastern or central time zone. (202) 748-8001 in the mountain or pacific time zone. and the line for fox news viewers, (202) 748-8002. this is harry out of pittsburgh, good morning. caller: good morning. does stelter have the guts to go on your show on sunday morning and debate with hannity, -- second of all, -- the lincoln project run by child predators, he killed 10,000 people and now false -- faults fauci. host: if you want to get hannity

and you at the desk, we will have you on if you want to take calls on it. guest: that is why i am glad to be here, i think it is a rewarding and it is helpful for me to hear from viewers. if hannity wants to do it, -- host: how many calls do you think we will get in in that segment? guest: you will have to launch a whole new channel, you have -- you will have to have c-span four. we used to have a great relationship, he gave me great advice when i joined cnn. a lot of relationships in the trump year, our relationships frayed in the trump era and that is disappointing to me. i think he is certainly doing something very different than what i am doing. i am trying to cover the news and cover the media, he is trying to advance a political agenda. there are a lot of interests in that, desire on part of the viewers did that. host: what was his best advice to you? guest: he talk to me about

looking into the camera and looking -- he talked about looking past the camera and think about that one viewer that you are with in the room and try to connect one with that person. that might sound obvious, but it was anything but obvious when you're going to tv. it is not natural, but he helped to make it more natural. host: california, good morning, you're on with brian stelter. caller: good morning. i caught your coverage of inauguration i, it reminded me -- inauguration night, it reminded me of the speech as you would get out of -- covering the persian kings in the old days. pretty shameless if you ask me. host: anything specific you want to bring up? we lost him. that is ok. guest: i think i went to bed

early, i was not on tv that they, -- -- that day. host: fox news viewer, good morning. caller: good morning a thank you for taking my call. i watch fox news for the comedy in it. you want to put hannity on here? hannity who for years assaulted hillary clinton with lies about her stealing from her charity. who steals from a cancer children's charity, donald trump, hannity, uranium one, how long did they do segments, what i will tell you here and now for all of these americans calling in, insulting mr. stelter, it is just ridiculous and it shows just what he is saying, they have no argument, no policy. so they attacked personally. they attacked the network. however before 2016 determined

the presidential election because the network said something about about me. -- bad about me. lower angle it attaching about you last night. -- was attaching -- attacking dr. fauci last night. he said we are for masks. fox news is crazy and they are being sued. cnn, they make these false suits, let's talk about kevin nunez. host: you bring up a lot of issues, brian stelter, which one do you want to pick up? guest: you are hitting on the big lie and the impact of voter fraud lies last fall. that is why i rewrote this book. when you go back and look at

october and november, the commentary on fox was incredibly reckless, it was incredibly irresponsible because it was planting seeds of doubt in the viewers mind that the election was fair and accurate. there are anchors at fox who accurately announced that biden was president-elect. that happens, there were commentators on fox who are a lot more popular like rick carlsen and ß sean hannity -- rick carlsen and it sean hannity who created doubts. when you do that, in order to undermine and subvert the election, and try to make them believe that trump is the real winner, that is incredibly damaging and undemocratic. that is what happened on fox. i think for me as a television professional, i think fox should be stronger, be more reality-based. i am a reporter who covers fox and the rest of the media world and i think one of the biggest issues we have right now is this drift away from a common

reality, a common awareness of the effects. when biden was named president-elect and they went on the shows promoting voter fraud lies, that did real damage to the country. whether they wanted to get ratings or profit, it did real damage to the country. you mentioned the lawsuit, that is an interesting story in the years to come. suing fox news, suing others who erred and promoted the big lie. and who knows, will they win, will fox win out? we do not know. it is a pest for fox news. host: in your book in the hardback and paperback version, talk about your sources inside fox news. how do you get people inside fox news to talk to you, especially after the hardback came out? guest: the hardback came out in august and it helps to win -- win over new sources because i had them read the book and skim the book and they say, you got

it right. you hit on what is on my network. in the same way that every workplace has strengths and weaknesses and when a fox's strengths and that they are good at television production, they light up the screen, they have great graphics and visual presentation. that is a strength. a weakness of fox news is the lack of leadership on the lack of an editorial mission that is focused on what is true. instead, they focus on state contra reese's and blow stories out of proportion. -- estate controversies. they look at a book and say, you got that right and they help me. they talk to me the same way i would win over the story. however, there are some who do not talk to me anymore. i mentioned sean hannity. i have to be aware of my sources , what their agendas are and i keep that in mind. i can tell you this, from my reporting in the paperback, a lot of people there who are in

the rank and file who try to gather the news for a living, who feel squeezed out because there is less room for news and more room for screaming about the news. that is not good for anybody, not good for donald trump, not good for news, not good for the country because it results in an eco chamber, more of a bubble where you are only hearing what you want to believe. by the way, i think that applies to trump supporters, we have to make sure there are fewer eco chambers in media, we need to make sure people are exposed to more news, more fact-based news, i think that is a challenge across the board. host: another fox news viewer, and in jacksonville, florida. caller: good morning. i am a longtime viewer of fox and cnn. i think what we are in now is pretty much a disinformation war. it is going on full scale. one of the biggest lies out there is this notion that fox is

just the opposite side of the coin as cnn. i did not think that it is even remotely true in terms of -- guest: i agree with you. caller: the amount of lies do not come close. i think fox is head and shoulders above it in terms of amount of lies and what i am really interested in and -- as some type of way of showing this to the public like some object of analysis of some sort. i thought of a couple of different solutions. i'm surprised someone before had not offered up some pollution -- some solution to get more of a one-to-one comparison to see which ones are telling the truth. what about debate shows for instance between your top rated anchors, let's see between anderson cooper going head-to-head against hunger carlsen, hannity against don

lennon -- don lemon. guest: i think the issue there, you forget about the structural issues. i think you are describing two different kinds of television hosts. you have a news anchor who want to tell you what happened that day versus a partisan host with an agenda, sometimes i would argue full-blown propaganda and i agree with you, they are not the same. these brands are not opposite to one another. cnn has bureaus around the world in dozens of countries. fox news does not. they basically just have a jerusalem and london, maybe role. they do not have a bureau in asia. fox did not have anybody in china, they talked a lot about of china, -- about china, but they did not have anyone in china. what we need more of, forget about cnn and all of our bureaus, we need more people out there gathering the news and not

so much of the yelling and shouting. fox is good at the shouting. they do not gather the news as much. that is the difference when you talk about cnn versus fox. there are measurable ways to determine the health of a news organization, how the awards, how many bureaus, how many staffers, how may producers and by those metrics, fox is very weak and fox viewers should wanted to be stronger. host: aurora, indiana, you are on with brian stelter. caller: we have another bookseller -- if it is like cnn. guest: forget about the book. i'm not here to sell you, i'm here for your question. caller: cnn is a joke. it is a joke. this guy tells more lies and fox gives more news than cnn -- guest: well i did i tell?

-- what lie did i tell. host: the question that mr. stelter is asking is, what specific lies are you referring to? caller: about trump. we knew it was a fake election. we knew that this was a fake election. host: brian stelter? guest: i do not like to use words like dumb or smart because we are talking about measurable reality, measurable effect. this was not a close election -- measurable fact. this was not a close election. this was painful for trump supporters and people i know in my life, it is hard to see someone lose like that. when he promised he would win and promised he would -- i think we have to face facts. the first time in 30 years, the president served one term and he lost, he was defeated in the reelection.

george w. bush did the same thing, he lost and went fishing and barely got heard from when he lost. trump continues to lie to you and all of us and claims that he won. ultimately, it is about morals and ethics. i was taught in my high school in damascus, maryland, not to lie and i thought -- i am sure you are told not to lie. i swear, president biden tells us the sky is red, we will call him out. we will call him out if he claims that the earth is flat. we have to call outliers and callout disinformation, even when it hurts and i think that is the job and the job news will keep going toward. host: minnesota, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. i am a democrat. i enjoy listening to all news

sources. i'll be honest, i did listen to fox when -- ryan, i like your program as well. i miss brooke baldwin a lot. i guess my observation i want to make, is that i like rachel maddow. 8:00 every night, i watch her. she is very liberal. that is apparent. fox news, very conservative. what i noticed with cnn is that just about at any time during the day, i can turn you on, your show or cnn and i can see a republican, a republican sitting on the panel and you're talking with republicans all day long. so i do not understand all of these naysayers out there saying about cnn when you can turn on

fox news and i do not ever see a democrat on their and hardly ever a liberal. you will never see a conservative on rachel. on cnn, i will see both sides all day long. guest: i think you said something really important about foxy in the biden era, there are fewer democrats on fox news. they have been reducing the presence of democrats on fox news. for example, on the new show that's on the new show, one of five panelists sometimes no liberal panelists. you can see in measurable ways how fox has moved further to the right and reduced democratic voices. that is unfortunate because democrats have power right now, they should be able to explain their arguments and be challenged and be scrutinized on fox and elsewhere. this is an increasing sectarianism that we see in the country, this polarization in the country based on not hearing

anyone you disagree with. that is unfortunate. we have the fight against it. i think all of us in good faith have to help lower the temperature in our small ways, whether that is when you post on facebook, lowering the temperature so that this does not feel like a country that could split apart. none of us want that. i think the more we can lower the temperature and talk to one another, that is a good thing. i love the questions, you are making me sweat, i feel like i should have one my cnn makeup, but i love the question because i think feedback and the idea to help make a stronger -- that is why i mentioned my email, bstelter@gmail.com, i love your feedback. host: there was a color at the end of yesterday's program who called in to say, look, i do not believe in conspiracy theories, but he said, i know that the government does not always tell the truth. he was talking about wmd's in

iraq. how do you maintain a healthy skepticism without going too far? guest: i completely agree with that and i think it is important that we trust the verify to my right now, this administration has a pretty healthy track record of mostly saint reality-based -- sane reality-based and that have not seen the kind of full-blown lying as a strategy that we saw in the trump administration. they have earned some trust, but we must verify. and you do that by looking for primary source material, you look at follow-up reporting, i think the work in the new york times and other outlets that can do long investigations, they help the check and see if what you are hearing everyday actually adds up. i think all of us as news consumers need to have skin in

the game by discuss rubbing -- by subscribing, supporting your local news outlet, regional outlets to see the work you want to see done. supporting the marshall project, if you care about education, speaking on outlets that report on education. that kind of work, putting your dollars, even if only a few dollars, that is important to help keep a healthy new system that keeps governments in check because we have to assume that they are not always going to tell us everything and i'm not just talking about ufos, we have to continue to have a healthy media ecosystem to be a check and balance. host: type or maybe one more call. denise out of philly. caller: good morning. i am in philadelphia, i am a conservative. very rare person. i want to say a few things to you.

mr. biden has been lying for 47 years -- 40 some years. fox news is the top rated news per cable news and i want to know about the hunter biden story, why would you not carry anything about the hunter biden story, about his laptop and his lying and his drug use and that whole business? host: give brian stelter the last two minutes. guest: it is important to cover the biden family and cnn has covered the biden family. including hunter, there are issues with the laptop, when we have news outlets ask to see what was on the laptop computer, rudy giuliani request -- rejected those requests, so when we try to gather the news, and we were stymied, when there are obstructions and we see the challenge, yes, we should and we do cover the biden family. i read hunter's book and i thought it was compelling.

i think it is important that we do not end up in this -- i know you are but what am i sort of game, one person will say that the biden family and another response about the trump family. that is not a way to have a constructive debate or a constructive conversation in america. he said the biden's have been lying for four years. i respect your point of view, but there nothing that compares to president trump's lies in his four years in office. he divides the country to hurt people. that is true, it is sad. he lies to reporters to their faces. the game of what about is to say, fight and it just as bad, i want to get constructive. i think it is destructive. that is where we should think about it dividing line.

news outlets should be working every day to win your trust, to gain your trust and to hold onto it. i think -- i know every in my tiny way, i can try to win trust or if i make a mistake, will i scrub, i know i will lose trust. that is the challenge, that is the business we are in, to win trust and to get to the best obtainable version of the truth. and that is what i continue to try to do. either way, thank you so much for the chance to take the call. i do not get to hear often enough, i get a lot of your emails, but i want your phone calls. i'm grateful for that and my email is bstelter@gmail.com. i start on thursday morning, i started planning my sunday program on cnn, we start figuring out what guests to become a what topics to cover, i bet i will get inspiration from this today. host: we will have you on down the road to get more calls.

he is the host of cnn's reliable sources, author of “hoax: donald trump, fox news, and the dangerous distortion of truth." it is out in a new edition in paperback this week. thank you for your time. of next of this money, we continue this conversation on media coverage, we will be joined by rich noyes from the media watchdog group media research center, stick around for that discussion, we will be right back. ♪ >> book to be on c-span2 has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend, saturday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, best selling author john grisham, author of the innocent men, murder and injustice in a small town. on his work with the innocence project and wrongful convictions and sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards. former nypd commissioner bill on

his book, the profession, and no more of community, race, and the art of policing in america. he is interviewed by charles, former police commissioner and metropolitan police chief. on sunday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, history professor elizabeth with her book, america on fire, the history of police violence and black rebellion since the 1960's. wash book tv on c-span2 this weekend. -- watch book tv on c-span2 this weekend. american history tv on c-span3 exploring the people and events that tell the american story, every weekend, saturday at 5:00 p.m. eastern, a look at controversies over's free-speech through political cartoons with authors jonathan zimmerman and cindy with her book -- with their book. 6:00 p.m. eastern on the civil

war, the story behind the personal memoirs of ulysses as grand and saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, john hopkins university professor nathan connolly on the promise of suburbia after the civil rights movement and how local governments and pleaded desegregation. -- governments impeded desegregation. exploring the american story, watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> washington journal continues. host: we continue our discussion on media and political coverage with rich noyes, of the media research center where he is a senior editor for newsbusters, rich noyes, for those who are not familiar, what is the media research center, what is newsbusters? guest: we are a conservative media watchdog, we were set up in the 1980's to track media

bias, the media landscape being tilted against them. it was a conservative leader and his group that set up vcrs, personal computers, publishing a newsletter with the evidence to make the case, so it was not an ephemeral discussion, it was about concrete examples, concrete studies and we morphed to the blogoshpere in early 2000's, we published during the day, every day at newsbusters.org, but it is the stills -- it is still the same mission. this is a concrete discussion, not something you have in the abstract. host: what are the concrete examples this week you are looking at? guest: we spent some time on the coverage of vice president harasses trip to central america -- resident harris's -- present pasta harris's president

harris's trip to central america. she was the hawk on the border even though there is not much real evidence of that. those are the kinds of things we would go to day in and day out, just following the news, following what is on the cable network, the broadcast network and post that transcripts to make our point. host: getting a lot of attention this week, the example you cite, vice president harris and questioned by lester holt about going to the border. here is that exchange. [video clip] >> at some point, we are going to the border, we have been to the board. this whole -- to the border. we have been to the board. >> you haven't been to the board? -- to the border? >> i haven't been to europe. >> republicans come at you with

this, but congressman cuellar said that you -- >> i care about what is happening at the border. i am in momala because my focus -- in guatemala because my focus is on dealing with the root causes of migration. host: did he ask the right questions there? guest: the vice president did not have the right answer. this is a question people had on their mind since she was named as the leader to fight the border crisis back in late march. it has been 2.5, almost three months of when is she going to the border, when is the president going to go to the border, when will you start to see some betterment of the numbers and she was finally asked a question on june 8 and she did not have -- her best answer was that she had not gone to europe either. that is a sign -- as much time has passed, the biden

administration had not gotten their hands around it. we did a study a month ago showing that while there was a lot of coverage, network broadcast coverage of the border crisis in march, a very serious thing, there were negative coverage as well, that went down in april. the situation got better, but the coverage has moved on. plus coverage in april, not much in may, we have not done a study of that, but the new numbers out this week to show it is 180,000 encounters on the border, higher in may than any in april. april was worse than march so the situation is worse on the border are just as intense it has it been by the media seems to have moved onto to other topics. host: when you talk about coverage, do you focus on television coverage, newspaper coverage? who is the media? guest: mostly television. newspapers, alleys going back today -- at least going back, tv

floated into people's homes so people could record it and transcribe it and post examples in video. that was something that was doing a service to preserve the examples we are talking about. we have more of our time on television. it is hard to wrap your cell around 24 hour cable, -- your cell around 24 hour cable. cable spends its time on one topic all day long just hammering it. either they are covering something or they're not and if they are, it is ours. podcast is where you get a nice summary of what the top stories are today and they put a bit of a spin on it, not as glaring i think is what cable news does. it is easy to see where the liberal establishment is on these issues and we spend a lot of our time on abc, cbs, nbc as the highest rated and least

labor-intensive media we can look at. host: we spend a lot of time in our last segment talking about fox news, how much of your time do you devote to fox news coverage or comparisons between fox and these other organizations you look at. guest: we do some contrast, mostly -- we have our hands full looking at cnn, msnbc, they do -- they have gotten increasingly polemical i would say during the trump administration. they moved on being chronicles of what is going on in politics to first and foremost the opposition party during the trump years. i think even now in the biden administration, you see them get most animated and most excited when they get to have negative coverage of republicans, with acs republican outreach -- what they see as republican outrage.

i think they have fundamentally changed their mission and their approach. msnbc has been more of a solid left-wing outlets. i think going back to the end of the iraq war in 2003-2004, when they hired people like him, they changed a bit over the years and become more political, more left-wing. fox does a different thing, they have gotten a very political crime time as well, but they will focus on stories that the other networks will not focus on and i think that gives people the contract. i would recommend people who watch a bit of all of these networks so they can get a full view of what is going on because you not going to get a lot of these stories on cnn or msnbc and if you watch fox, you should that she will miss out on the things you will see in other networks.

-- you will miss out on the things you see in other networks. host: phone lines split this way, if you want to join the conversation, republicans (202) 748-8000. democrats, -- republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. go ahead, keep calling in. plymouth, wisconsin. on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i would say that fox news inflates stories because i'm hearing stories of people thinking that cities were burned down by the black lives matter's protests, there are definitely areas of problem, but they think the cities are burned and gone. my question is, and i could have a follow-up depending on your

answer, would you think the worst lie is that donald trump -- what you think the worst lie is that donald trump told? i do not think fox news did a good job of explaining that. what you think the worst lie is? guest: by business is looking at the media, not politicians. if you could survey all politicians and find shaded truth, ms. truth, -- mistruth, the media has a special approach in covering donald trump. they gloried in reporting on small issues. the difference we had in the media landscape in the trump years was the media becoming the primary opposition, finding democrats who are going to criticize or contradict what the president and his team said. and arbitrate that battle between democrats and

republicans and let democrats speak for themselves, a lot of times, the media elbowed democrats out of the way and did the job themselves and their -- and it hurt their credibility. you see the media in a more partisan prism. a gallup poll, 73% of democrats, higher than 10 years ago have a great deal of trust in the media. that has to do with the media and how they approach not just the trump administration but other issues as well. if you think donald trump lies, there are networks that will tell you that day in and day out and you could enjoy them, but that is more for a political person to say that a media person. host: republicans, david out of independence, louisiana. caller: good morning. i would like to say first off, i

want to thank you personally for being so nice to me over a couple of years. it has helped me and i was surprised to see how happy you were with that last guest. it tells me a lot about you and the show. it is me a lot about you and the show. it is supposed to be fair and balanced. a think about if there was no fox news. how fair and balanced would it be? comparing trump to biden, he thinks that biden is in reality and trump would do 1000 more than biden will ever have a chance to. mr. john, this goes back to something i had to tell you before. there were two realities we live in. the average person has a reality they are immersed in, then there is another one that you tv people create. the last guest was the best example that i can think of. that guy is in dreamland, man.

host: let's give our current guest a chance to talk about these two realities you talk about. guest: you have seen it more and more in the media landscape. pew research did a poll for president biden's 100 days, and the audience of cnn and nbc are disproportionately liberal. 20% or 30% more liberal than conservative. fox news, i think it is already percent more conservative than liberal. -- 30% more conservative than liberal. people have chosen their media outlets to favor. the hosts of those outlets know very well who is in their audience and what those people want to hear. yes. brian stelter will tell the cnn

audience what is most interesting to their audience, criticizing republicans and finding some good things to say about the biden administration. fox news will go the other way. i agree that fox is a great addition to the media landscape if you are interested in overall fairness because they give a perspective that you don't get on cnn/nbc, pbs, or the other shows. it is sort of a lonely job they have. they're getting some company and cable outlets, but it is still not a very balance landscape, but they contribute to the overall balance. rich noyes what you think -- host: what do you think of brian stelter's coverage of the media? guest: i don't watch every week. i know he got in trouble this week by asking the white house

press secretary softball questions about her job but approached it from a friendly point of view where during the trump years he had a lot of criticism of the trump press secretary and press operation. he would say that because the two administrations are very different, you go back to what is the definition of a journalist. is a journal is supposed to be making conclusions and building their coverage out of their own conclusions of these different little go activities or and are verdure -- or an arbiter of let them speak. too much we see journalists want to decide who the good guys and bad guys are and go from there. i think that doesn't give the audience the respect that they deserve to make decisions themselves. host: from oregon, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, brian. good morning mr. noyes.

i voted for reagan, i voted for the bushes, i voted for mccain, but when the republicans nominated donald trump i looked at his history and left the party and i'm glad i did. i think we say unprecedented attacks on the rule of law and preserving our republican republic form of government. i am just really disappointed in conservatives who do not call a spade a spade, and authoritarianism authoritarianism. if you want to comment on that, go ahead. host: mr. noyes? guest: in 2015 or 2016, we were not founded. this is an issue of

conservatives getting a fair shake but there representation goes back to the reagan's, bushes, and other conservatives going back over time. the heat and level of division i think has gone up in the last five to seven years, but what we do is something that is solid consistent performance over the last 35 years now, looking at news coverage and trying to explain our side. angst change -- things changed clearly with the trump administration coming in, there is more political news, more divisive political news, but the mrc has been consistent in talking about the need for fair news coverage and balanced coverage. host: talk about a typical day at mrc and how you do the work you do. guest: it has changed over the years. we used to have vcrs that would tape the news during the day and

night and you had one videotape to share with other people. now it is done on dvr's, digital recordings, that people pull up on their desktops. we have analysts that come in and review the morning shows, looking at cable news, what happened. the night crew looks at what happened overnight. they can click the stories on their desktop, transcribed the stories, talk amongst themselves whether or not a single moment requires its own right up, or if they can put together a compilation of what all three networks did in the morning to contrast them with each other. it is a team of analysts who come in and work collaboratively to review the news with relief the most sophisticated digital, technological tools we've ever had. it is easier, faster, and better to do this now than when i started decades ago. host: how many people work

there? guest: between our stringers and the people we have, i think it is around 30. we have different departments, we have a business department, culture department, people who look at the main news division, people looking at technology and the big tech companies. then we have stringers who are in various parts of the country looking at what they see, freelancing, and putting it altogether, then the editors choose what goes on to the homepage every morning and afternoon, updated probably 15 times a day. host: out of arkansas, republican, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. how are you? mr. noyes, technically i am a libertarian. i didn't know what phone number to call. have a very straightforward question. do you think the national media,

cable or syndicate, print, television, or social media has made the division in this country worse? yes or no? thank you for taking my call. guest: yes. i think it is plain. partly the media is catering to more of their fragmented audience which helps to increase the polarization of what you see . there has always been heightened sensationalism in news programs, whether it is political or general news. social media is also a trend where people are finding, sharing, and re-tweeting some of the most extreme things. all of those trends coming together has made it a very divisive time. i don't think that the media are helping to calm things or bring things together. i think it would be better if they had more balanced panels, balanced discussions. i wish you had more republicans

on cnn and cnn bc, more democrats on fox where you are building coverage for people to make up their own mind and it wasn't predict a bowl day in and day out as to who would say what. -- predictable day in and day out as to who would say what. they are making decent money narrow casting to their partisan audiences. they probably won't change what they are doing in terms of having credibility and authority . i think that is not what it was 10, 15, 20 years ago. host: keith, denver, colorado, line for democrats. caller: i have been following news busters. it is a totally fraudulent organization. but let me say that i have a masters degree in journalism, and i have been doing pr for

four years. fox news is the most destructive force in our media landscape. it is only 25 years old. we keep saying how divisive things have become in the last 25 years. duh, fox entered the newsroom not to add balance, but to speedbump media. that has been a plan going back to roger ailes when he was working for richard nixon. he didn't have the money to do it until rupert murdoch came on the scene. host: rich noyes on the history of fox news? guest: he is right. it is about 25 years old. before that what you had was almost an artificial unanimity

among left of center journalists who decided they were the gatekeepers of our national discussion. they decided what people would see, what would be on the news. you go back to the clinton financial scandals, al gore raising money in a buddhist temple, that was not something brought up on tv news. it was kept to one side because the gatekeepers decided it wouldn't be there. fox did open it up. you are right, there is division, but there is also healthy debate. i think fox has contributed to the overall media landscape with bringing in new topics and things shut out of the media landscape. there news coverage, the main news part of the day, that is solid journalism that matches what is on the other networks or exceeds it. their prime time is devoted to

what their audience wants to hear, clearly a right of center set of programming now, but you have left of center programming explicitly shown on cnn and msnbc on those hours. i'm not sure if you can talk a ball of the divisiveness to fox news -- chalk up all of the divisiveness to fox news and i think they are a healthy addition to the media landscape. host: cable news, the various networks, and in the past 24 hours. from usa today but in most every national paper a government report concluded that federal police did not clear protesters from lafayette square last summer so that trump could walk to a nearby church for a photo op. it was released by the secret service determined it was necessary to remove the protesters from the area so contractors could install security fencing. guest: this is a great example

of how you have a narrative that 53 weeks ago the media, most of the liberal networks we looked at, were in over donald trump's walk to the park. they claimed, not knowing the truth of the matter, that this was a violent clearing of the park because of his walk. we now know it wasn't the case. it was mentioned on the broadcast last night except for nbc nightly news. they were part of the crew a year ago that were criticizing the president for this. they did not mention this on their newscast last night. i saw it on cnn this morning as i was getting ready. it is getting noticed, but not nearly to the higher octave level that the complaining was a year ago. i am glad it is getting some coverage to correct the record. it just shows you what people

did a year ago, taking some evidence and jumping to broad conclusions, they should be more cautious in the future. but i doubt they will be. host: alabama, a republican, good morning. caller: first of all, i want to say fox news shows us everything alive. we get -- everything live. we get to watch it and judge it for ourselves. we don't have to have msnbc and cnn to tell us how to think. i have a brain of my own. and rear ends are like opinions, we all have one. they keep saying there are no democrats on fox. he is a democrat and he doesn't care to let you know that. another thing, they keep saying libertarian.

i watch fox all the time. let me tell you why, please don't cut me off. i had msnbc on my line-up on my dish network. i had them took off. i went up on my monthly bill just to get them removed and put fox on because they show everything live and you see it for yourself. they are the only news channel that is at the border showing us all this stuff. none of the other networks are. host: rich noyes? guest: i think that is why fox has so many fans and people who are interested in watching them. they are clearly getting something different, something they like, someone who respects their ability to make up their own minds. that is why you look at the cable landscape, it is

essentially fox in front, msnbc is now sort of a distant number two, and cnn is by far in third place. all of the ratings i should point out have gone down in the last year because we are in a less heated environment. it is still fox, it is still getting the most viewers because they are the most different. others are carbon copies of each other. host:host: another example is when it was ok to start asking questions on cable television about the origins of the coronavirus, and whether it could have come from a lab in china. guest: that is something -- right now we are at the phase of this discussion where it is uncertain. no one knows exactly what happened. that is probably where it should have been a year ago when you had some tv, some of these big

tech platform saying there is only one side of this story. if anyone says the other side we are going to put out a fact check and say that they are wrong. this is the need for journalism in particular to layout what it knows and be clear about what it doesn't know and avoid making conclusions based on partial evidence. we talked about it with the clearing of lafayette park. it is true with the wuhan lab story. there is some evidence that evolves over time, but that is no need to make sweeping conclusions. and the few people who don't agree with your conclusions, that is media people trying to put on a show for their supporters, and for the sake of their credibility they should be more humble. host: maryland, stephen, an independent. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i think the mrc has done what no or -- no other organization

has done. the white grievance machine was being confronted in 1987 by bob dole. mrc accomplished what chris riley has described as segmenting white supremacists away from the national conversation of racism. other news organizations would not outright call mexican immigrants vermin or cockroaches. fox news would do it and the media research center would allow it. fox would whip up a lying racist panic over critical race theory and mrc would say that it is legitimate and fox was being fair and balanced. the media research center has created donald trump by giving white grievance legitimization. guest: we talk about race and

race issues when it is in the news, but it is not our focus. i don't think we have had any role in doing the things the caller accuses us of doing. we are a group who records the news, watches the news, transcribes the news, and posts what we are talking about. we don't allow news organizations to say what they say. if we did we would have a better landscape if we had that kind of police power over the media. host: greensboro, north carolina, a democrat. caller: good morning. since you said that fox is less biased. what is a positive story that fox had on president obama during his time? the other point that i would like to make is fox has more viewers of one persuasion. that is why they have more. people who believe other things have so many other channels to select from that they can watch

msnbc one night and cnn another night. but you only have one persuasion, that is fox. i think maybe a couple of new ones have come in like fox. host: rich noyes? guest: i couldn't hear it all at the end, but clearly fox news, when they were covering the obama administration, would cover the white house press conferences, they would cover the positive as well as the negative. again, i don't think it is the job of a journalist to decide what is good and bad and draw conclusions, but you had fair coverage of the obama administration. something that the caller would probably disagree with. i think that is the name of the game. the obama administration was one where you had a galvanizing in the liberal media outlets to be explicitly promotional more than

it had been with the clinton administrations. you had a complete flip in the trump years. the biden years seem to be a return to the obama years. across all of these administrations you are seeing journalists move increasingly to their partisans. now we are seeing more of that in the country at large among the public. host: you focus on liberal media bias but i wonder your thoughts on the bias of organizations like newsmax tv and one american news? guest: they are still in the growing stages but they are additional alternatives. if they find a broad audience i think they will do very well in the future. the nature of technology these days is there is less of a barrier to entry when there are 300 to 400 channels available on

cable or direct streaming than when you had an antenna on your house and you could get three or five. it is something we have a lot more competition. we will see a lot of these things stay with their niche and others rise and become major outlets. i think competition is healthy when it comes to ideas and everything else. host: texas, a republican, good morning. caller: i quit watching msnbc because joey became so racist and negative. then i quit watching cnn because they allowed all of the guests to come on and do nothing but burn rate -- two burn --berate

and name-calling. even the national section of the program, you've got nothing. host: what do you watch now? caller: i watch a variety of all of them, but i will never go back to msnbc or cnn. never. not when they allow their guests to speak to the public the way that they allowed them to. it was completely discussing. and then the man u had on this morning, to sit there and take a full picture shot of him standing in a suit in his underwear. host: i'm not sure what you are referring to, but we will take your viewership question, her viewing diet. guest: this is more of an example of people are turning their backs on media that they don't think respects them,

respects the way they want the news delivered. i think journalism would be better served if journalists stuck to the knitting of journalism rather than trying to be political kingmakers or drawing conclusions and acting like politicians. she is talking about joy read on msnbc, she is a democratic operative in florida. she comes to msnbc with a political background, and it's clear that she engages in a hardball version of politics on her show. she certainly has her fans, people like that, but it is much more politics than journalism. people who are looking for some kind of news or debate that makes you think probably don't like that type of thing. clearly, the caller doesn't. host: about five minutes left. it is newsbusters.org. his twitter handle @richnoyes.

good morning. caller: good morning. let me talk about your last caller. is she serious? has she ever seen tucker carlsen and that group that calls names about joe biden, kamala harris, regardless of what they did for barack obama, mr. monkey, big lips, all these things. i watch cnn. they talk about infrastructure, vaccines. i watch fox news. i like watching them both just to see. they talk about dr. fauci, biden , and all of this conspiracy stuff. this is why i watch cnn. i want to know what america is doing for us. where the infrastructure built? this is what i want to talk about.

forget all of this other bullcrap they want to talk about. host: on the coverage of infrastructure on the networks? guest: infrastructure is one of the staples of news coverage that has been talked about for a long time. i want to commend the caller for watching both sides. that is something more people need to do. even if he doesn't like one side he is challenging himself by watching both in making up his own mind. the coverage of the infrastructure bill we have seen so far, based on the broadcast evening newscast, it is getting 65% coverage in the early weeks of it going out. it is something that is seen as a need to have happen. in our early study of biotin coverage which found roughly 60% positive and 40% negative on the broadcasts, the best marks he had were on issues of covid, or issues of government spending.

i think the broadcast networks, and this probably pertains to cnn and msnbc though we don't have numbers on it, you don't have the liberal media networks at least really acting as any kind of a check on federal spending. they are cheerleaders for federal spending and not worried about debt, deficit, the side of the government encroaching deeper into the economy. that is a debate we use having a robust way, now it has moved to the sidelines. i think that is something that is really different over the years. host: a question from twitter, everything fell apart when the fairness doctrine was repealed. can you talk about the fairness doctrine? guest: that has more to do with talk radio. on broadcast, there was a requirement from the fcc to make

sure all opposing points of view were permitted. in reality what happened is people did not want to get sued, they did not want to open their airways to all sides, so they ended up doing very little what you call public service programming. that changed in the reagan years and it became something that you were allowed to have political debate on the airwaves without having to bring in every side and have people open for lawsuits. that is when talk radio began to rise, rush limbaugh being the champion of it for many years. now you have many people filling that slot. that goes back to the debate. you want to have the government constricting the political debate, or the marketplace? talk radio? not everyone is a fan of it. it is something that the marketplace has endorsed and flourished and we will see if it

survives the technology changes. now it is still a powerhouse among conservatives. host: quakertown, pennsylvania. ben, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment that if you watch fox news and most of the independent cnn, msnbc, fox news manufactures the news. you watch a program, watch fox news and watch one of the other independent channels. the others report the news. fox manufactures the news. if you watch a program for the same activity you would know -- you would not know if it is one or two news programs you are watching. there is -- host: i thought you were done. guest: clearly he watches enough to know what is going on on all of the channels. that is a good thing.

if you look at cnn and msnbc, a lot of the results of not news reporting in the classic sense, it is taking a soundbite from a press conference or a brief report from capitol hill or the white house, and having a six -minute long political discussion. these are more political shows, they get very rhetorical and prime time. they are almost on-air editorials about different topics. there is a lot of commentary instead of news these days. i think that is true for all the networks. host: what are you going to be looking for today, what is your coverage? guest: probably following up on the report about lafayette park, see what the morning shows did. we had an inflation number that was a little hotter than expected. we will see if that becomes part of an ongoing discussion about the healthy economy under the

biden administration will stop the news may take us in a different direction by noon, and we will be there. host: we will check in at noon. appreciate your time. just about 30 minutes left in our program and we will end today by once again turning to the phone lines, an open forum for public policy, whatever issues you want to talk about. issues that might be affecting you in your state. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. call in now and we will be right back. >> black texans celebrated. many white texans responded to those celebrations with violence . there are stories about people who were whipped because they

celebrated the end of slavery. there are accounts of unleashing a torrent of violence on the freed men. someone talked about a person recounted coming to an area and finding almost 30 bodies of black people, men, women, and children, hanging from trees. talks of bodies in the river. once blacks ceased to be properties and whites lost their control over them, a number of whites responded with extreme hostility. >> a bullet surprise winning historian and a harvard professor talks about juneteenth and shares are stories from growing up in texas during the 1960's and 1970's sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q and a. you can listen to q and a as a podcast where you get your podcasts.

♪ >> washington journal continues. host: in the time we have left, an open forum for your phone calls. here is how you can join the discussion on any public policy, issues that may be impacting you in your state. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. as you call in, a couple of headlines from key stories that we have been tracking. yesterday -- it is expected to be an announcement today, but the news reporting today that president biden is to send 500 million doses to nations in need of coronavirus vaccine. the u.s. is planning to buy the pfizer vaccine at a not-for-profit price. this is headlines from the washington post and several of the major papers. named the busiest month along the mexico border since inauguration. porter arrests have soared. u.s. authorities intercepted migrants along the mexico border in may, and a growing share have been arriving from nations outside of central america and x ago according to u.s. customs and border protection data published yesterday.

this interesting story, an attention-grabbing headline, half of the pandemic unemployment money may have been stolen. criminals may have stolen as much as half of the unemployment benefits that the u.s. has been pumping out according to some experts. unemployment fraud during the pandemic could reach $400 billion. the bulk of the money likely ended up in the hands of foreign crime syndicates, making this not just theft, but a matter of national security. the story noting the ceo of id.me saying that america has lost $400 billion to fraudulent claims, as much as 50% of all unemployment moneys might have been stolen. if you want to read more, ax ias.com. we want to know what you're talking about in this open forum

-- axios.com.we want to know what you're talking about in this open forum. at 10:00 a.m. a house judiciary hearing with fbi director chris wrey. they will be filing an over the next 25 minutes. we will take you there on c-span, on c-span radio, the c-span radio app, and c-span.org. up first, david, new york, a republican. what is on your mind? caller: good morning. we have a great congresswoman, i would like to give her shout out. i appreciate the two guests you head-on in the last hour. a very interesting and stimulating conversation. what i want to say is as a truck driver, we are some of the most essential workers out here because if we miss too many days

-- grocery store will be there. we need to give truck drivers a break. i get most of my information off the radio, so i do not watch fox, cnn, or c-span. i listen to c-span on the radio. when i'm home i listen to the 6:30 news on cbs. it is amazing what they do not report on. i think people need to start searching for other sources for their information, including some of the online sources like news max and one news now. there is a lot of information out there that is not reported. investigative journalists have really dropped the ball. they don't treat journalism like we use to in the old days.

quit trying to spin every story they present. i want to thank c-span, your radio program will. thank you for taking my call. host: are you driving a truck right now? [horn honks] caller: yes, sir. i am on u.s. 50 with bluetooth devices heading to the eastern shore. host: what are you running today? caller: miscellaneous freight. host: how many miles do you think you put in over the course of the past year? caller: i had no days off except for my vacation time. i put in over 100,000 miles. all the drivers out here are doing about 100,000 or more miles per year. i have been out here for 20 years. just over 2 million miles a couple months ago. host: can i be a kid and ask for

the horn one more time? caller: you got it. [horn honks] host: home base is new york. thank you for the call on the republican line. out of new york as well, independent. caller: that horn did remind me of road trips with my family when i was a kid. every time we went by a trucker we wanted them to honk the horn. host: yes, ma'am. caller: my biggest concern now is this breakdown on some of the people, i guess the far progressive side, who think that the flag and anthem all have to be tore down. that concerns me. if we want to stay united as a country, we do have to have some things in common. this critical race theory is

against everything i was brought up to believe. that you don't look at color. i think that is going to destroy us as a country. if we are teaching people to hate their color or be a victim by their color. everyone in this country has a path to succeed. i'm really concerned about that. one other thing real quick, i woke up unfortunately late. i missed the very first person. i caught the last person you had. but there was a big lie for two years about the russian pollution. -- russia collusion. the news got it wrong, and got the corona origin wrong. they don't take responsibility for that will stop that is a big problem too. host: you said that you missed the first segment with brian

stelter. you can watch it on our website. it should be up on c-span.org. you can watch it in its entirety. keep calling and in the open form phone line for republicans, democrats, and independents as usual. one of the getty images on the front page of many papers around the world is this one of president biden addressing u.s. air force personnel at the royal air force base in suffolk, england. the president making his first overseas trip through the weekend. we track this trip. we want to look at president biden's meeting today with boris johnson, the british prime minister. we are doing that by zoom with nick allen, the u.s. editor of the telegraph in the u.k.. what are going to be the key issues on the table for today's get together with the prime minister? guest: issues like getting

together and reinforcing their commitment to counter autocracy in china and russia. the lead up to the geneva summit next week. and also climate change, this is a precursor to the u.n. climate change conference that is in glasgow in november. some of those issues have been overshadowed because a row erupted about northern island. there is dispute over imports that have been to northern ireland from the british mainland. it is quite a complicated issue, which has been dubbed the sausage wars because it has to do with sausage and chilled meat. joe biden obviously has a lot of interest due his own irish

heritage, and he apparently through diplomatic channels expressed strong concerns about the british, the way that they are handling it. that will be something biden and johnson talk about quite a lot. it has a potential to overshadow broader global issues they hope to discuss in the g7. host: what is their personal relationship like? we know that they have talked on the phone since president biden, since his inauguration, but why do we know about the two men? how much do they like each other? guest: i think they do. they have had two phone calls. the first phone call that president biden made after canada and mexico was boris johnson. that was a good sign from a

british point of view. from everything that we are told they get on very well, they share an interest in climate change and achieving very ambitious goals on that. they are both cyclists. both very keen on that on a personal level. they get on, with boris johnson being a good host. we think they will have a good rapport. host: president biden will be meeting with the queen on sunday. what are you watching for from that meeting? guest: with the queen it is quite important. i think joe biden will be her 13th u.s. leader that she met. she met everyone except for johnson i'm pretty sure. obviously joe biden will be well briefed on protocol.

it is an interesting time because the queen hasn't met anyone for a while due to covid. it will be a big moment for the two nations. host: speaking of covid, how did boris johnson come out politically in the u.k. during the lockdown? where is he with the british people at home? a little one-on-one on his political stance in the country? guest: he is way ahead in the polls. way ahead of the labour party. the vaccination program is going very well. you have maybe 70 million doses delivered. a very nice percentage of the population is vaccinated. if you look at all of the data it is one of the best programs in the world. there has been some people

wanting to reopen quicker. june 21 is currently the day, our version of independence day when the final lockdown eases. there has been talk where that might get delayed. you had a day a couple of weeks ago when there were zero covid deaths in the u.k. the daily death toll is less than 10. all in all people are, he is riding high on the back of that. host: nick allen, the u.s. editor of the telegraph out of the u.k. what is the best case scenario for boris johnson from both his biden visit and all this focus with the g7 in britain? guest: ultimately the far goal for britain at the moment is a trade deal with the u.s.

obviously you have brexit. boris johnson is pushing the idea of global britain, making trade deals around the world, and the u.s. is a big one. that will take some work. he has other goals, including specifically travel. travel quickly between the u.s. and u.k.. at the moment the u.s. is on an amber list. american citizens going into the u.k. and u.k. citizens can't come to the u.s.. that is a priority and something boris johnson raises very early on. can we get a travel corridor or arrangement set up quickly where people can travel, because the covid figures in the u.k. are very low. telegraph.co.uk is where you can read nick allen's work. thank you so much for the time

this morning. back to your phone calls in the last 10 minutes or so of the washington journal. it is an open forum. let us know what the issues are on your mind. the issues happening in your state. this is leah in california. morning. caller: good morning. the last two calls, i am just astounded at how brainwashed 40% of the american public is. don't listen to the first guy, don't watch newsmax. it is just propaganda from russia. the topic is california. love it or leave it. i was born here, it is a great state. there are a lot of people here who want to do something which is divide the state, the liberal lefties and the god-fearing right people.

i think it is one state. if you don't like california and its progressive politics, moved to idaho. there are plenty of other states in the union. that you can drive to. that are probably more aligned with your politics. let's just let california be a freaky, liberal haven for freethinkers. host: whereabouts in california do you live? caller: beautiful mom co., california. host: good morning, jack. caller: i wanted comment that i don't think that the media, the price are enemies of the people. -- the press are enemies of the people, as they were so painted constantly. whether it be cnn -- it seems to be the attack is primarily on

the video, the tele-video media. there is press corps, there is newspapers, and the most i would say part of the media that is the most dangerous are the unedited social media posters who aren't quite -- i can't hear you. host: finish your comment. aren't quite what? caller: art edited -- are not edited or commented on. who have an editor monitoring with a right and fact checking. i think most media are honestly trying to portray things accurately. it is the listener who has a bigoted point of view that doesn't like what they are being told that goes against their opinions. host: this is pat in austin, texas, democrat. caller: good morning, thank you

for taking my call. i just wanted to bring back to people's mind the voting rights. how different states and even in our congress where blacks particularly are being disenfranchised from being able to cast a vote that will count. i believe people ought to be concerned about this. i remember martin luther king said something to the fact that injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. i know we are sitting on pins and needles in texas trying to see what our governor is going to do. i think he is talking about calling a special session so they can ram that through. it's not right and people should be outraged in any state.

host: on that issue, what do you think of the work of biden or state legislatures, the democrats in texas, on this issue? compare that to democrats in washington on this issue. caller: yeah, we do -- i would not call it advocacy, but we interact with our legislators every two years. one of them said, especially on criminal justice reform, which was our focus from he said i am just so frustrated, because the republicans are just not moving. they are saying things, doing things, stalegating. i am seeing the same thing in washington, d.c. it seems like the republicans all over the united states are doing the same things that republicans are doing everywhere, and it the same. i wanted to say that i believe

we should have some common ground, but come on. voting rights when there were no evidence of anything being wrong in the 2020 elections. why are we doing this if it is not to stop black people from voting? host: this is rachel in texas, independent. good morning. caller: yes. i was going to talk about fox news. when they covered the ukraine investigation, i watched it. i noticed that fox had the small screen on the bottom and they muted it. but later they had jim johnson. susan collins said he was guilty of bribery, but they did not charge him with bribery. she thought that he learned his lesson. then we have the capitol riot's,

and they make it out like it was a church revival and we had 140 police officers injured. one lost his eye, one lost three fingers, and one died, and to committed suicide. they want to think that was a church revival that they would go out and investigate benghazi and emails, even though trump's whole family has information on their personal server? i used to watch fox news. i wasted 20 years watching them. lying to people about the election. host: gail in massachusetts. caller: thank you for taking my call. all of this a house divided will not stand, this nation was built on the red, white, blue. the blood that was paid out for these people willing to die for me will stop it is not who is

right or who wrong, but my people perish through the lack of knowledge. these people with an issue with fox news or any station, why don't they take time to do honest research? they just go by subtitles. people who should know better that cannot even be in the same room and get along. this isn't who we are as a people. we love one another. we are patriots. this racist stuff is not true. it is the furthest from the truth. we people love. we live in harmony with our neighbors, we help each other, and we had -- who stood for our values. they hated him because he wanted what was good for the people. i'm not going to say a republican, just a person who was in a blessed country i'm grateful to be an american, grateful for the flag, and i don't have any animosity or

anger towards anyone. i pray for joe biden and all of the people. we know that someday they are going to stand before god and have to give an account for all this they have done so that we the people and all the nations around the world with their lies. host: we're going to be heading over to the house judiciary hearing featuring the fbi director. that is happening in a few minutes. also on c-span.org and the free c-span radio app if you want to listen to it. in these last few minutes as you are hearing from callers, if you see a helicopter in the window behind me, the capitol police news press release noting that around 10:00 a.m. today, maybe in the next couple of minutes, the u.s. part police will have a helicopter flying over the u.s. capitol complex for a low altitude photography flight. we don't know what it will look

like but it could be happening in the next couple of minutes and maybe you will see it out the window behind me. democrat, you are next. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. my whole background is science, i studied science my whole life and i taught science for quite a while. one of the main premises of science is things may not be what they appear to be. when man figured that out, that is how we got where we are today. you cannot see microwaves, but they are there will stop my point is if i would have watched fox news, that would be all i would know. if i only watched msnbc, that is all they would know. so if i am looking at things that simply support my opinions, than i don't have a valid opinion will stop i watch fox news, cnn, i don't watch msnbc. if you are not willing to think

that you could possibly be wrong , then you are lost. thank you for taking my call. host: district heights, maryland. good morning. alex, are you with us? we will go to joe out of fremont, california, republican, good morning. go ahead, joe. i hear you. caller: hello? thank you for taking my call. this is california, correct? host: you are on the air. caller: i would like to talk about the durham report. is he still alive? we don't hear anything about it. this is about a president who was basically scrutinized for everything he did and we haven't heard about this report. is it buried? host: david in oakdale, new

york. republican. caller: good morning. i also watch cnn, msnbc, fox, o an. i watch a lot of news and i also watch c-span. there is a lot of corruption. the corruption is what they are covering. you never hear about the 2012 election, hillary clinton and her emails anymore. cnn and msnbc kind of buried them. they don't report enough of it. they may say it for a few minutes or seconds, then they go on to the next topic. most of the verbiage that i hear on other channels, including the view, are all the same. i know the editing rooms must talk to the other editing rooms

so they say the same thing. it is really bad, because it is dividing the country. it is dividing the country. >> that was david in new york, our last caller. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern, 4:00 pacific. the house judiciary committee is set to hold a meeting -- a hearing with fbi director christopher wray.

[no audio] >> good morning. >> test your audio? >> good morning everybody. >> test your audio? >> good morning.

thank you all. >> can we test your audio?

>> hello, good morning. >> good morning, thank you. >> we are life this morning on capitol hill where fbi director christopher wray will testify this morning at an oversight hearing of the house judiciary committee chaired by jerry nadler of new york, the ranking republican is jim jordan of ohio. >> how much sleep did you get? >> they are. >> i got about four hours. [indiscernible] >> were with only two to go through last night and be here? >> i do not know. >> the freshman had a signal

chain, 78 messages on the signal chain from the freshman members. i was like, what is going on with my phone? just like to work signal chain just -- just like our signal chain. >> hello everyone. >> good morning.

>> can we test your audio and video? >> can you hear me? >> i hear you and see you. thank you. >> thank you. >> can we test your audio? >> 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. >> thank you.

[no audio] >> can we test your audio?

[no audio] >> can we test your audio? [no audio] >> can we test your audio? >> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. >>