-- panic costs us trillion. she is interviewed by lawrence dawson, director of the institute for national and global health. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2. find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime. >> another perspective of the states u.s. media, our guest angela, president and ceo of america. remind folks what the message is and what you do. guest: we focus on addressing the problem of conservative misinformation, whether it is active distribution of it or enabling of it by media. we identify, respond to it and point out when there is gaps in

coverage. we do studies or underscore it. these days, we do a lot of work with social media platforms, because the information landscape is changing. one of the things we have seen is the rise of disinformation. platforms are enabling it. we got a lot of work in identifying the challenge of the problem and is zeroing in on a solution that platforms can do to prevent it or solve it. that is a broad mission. we live monitor 16,000 hours of tv, radio and our a year. we archive and analyze more. that is what we do. we try to slightly improve the conversation or improve value. host: how long have you been with media matters? guest: since 2010. i was there as part of a campaign. it was about getting them to

stop being disruptive, or get fired. that was the objective. i came there to continue the work. that is how it started. i continue to do campaign and advocacy work. i work my way up. host: let's talk about media story of the week, month and year so far. the leaked draft opinion from the supreme court and mississippi abortion case. what conservative this information have been looking at? what gaps in coverage. guest: we have been looking at this for a while. if you look at broadly speaking, the coverage of reproductive health and abortion, it has been dominated by the right wing. when the texas law went into effect, there was only three mentions of it on cable news. over the first week it was

enacted. it wasn't discussed. the alarm bell wasn't wrong for most people that thing about politics or civic engagement. they never appreciated what was happening. even before then, journalists were echoing a lot of right-wing misinformation we were hearing. one of the things that catalyzed the momentum towards these pushes was describing it, restrictions as heartbeat bills. there is no fetal heartbeat. that was made up. that was made up by antichoice extremists. it had better messaging. one of the challenges, journalists echo that right away. a lot of the coverage that we are seeing right now as a consequence of gaps in coverage that have been lusting for a few years, which is exceeding the ground for -- the right wing pedia is focused on a leak.

-- the right-wing media is focused on a leak. it does not mean abortion is legal. it means it is going back to the states. they are shying away from celebrating the thing you would expect. the realize most people are disturbed by the implication of this. there is no discussion about the obligations of the media itself.

what matters is the outcome of the case. that is what is significant and newsworthy. when they find the leaker, when they have a story to tell, there is something newsworthy. at this moment, there should be the substance of the leak. there are plenty of leaks, that is what journalism is. you get a leak, you publish it. that is what journalists do. that is an important part of our civic discussion. if you look at major leaks that have created significant events, it is rare for the conversation to be focused on the leaker itself. there is noise curiosities, but it is weird for that to be the dominant narrative, and not to discuss the actual substance of the case. that is weird. host: you noted on one of your stories this week, the focus in the mainstream media is on the process and optics. have us an example. guest: one of the things they

point out, is this going to help the election? that is where the rest of the news media becomes a problem. i expect conservative and ideological media to focus on the leaker. they have an agenda. when i look at actual journalists, their focus is on to assess the political impact of this. that is part of it. not everything can be seen in the lens of horserace politics. this is not going to have -- this is not going to begin and end in november. the focus is on the people. if they were to focus on instead, people that it been prosecuted, put in jail, sometimes accidental or contrary to the law, these are crazy examples that have not been lifted up. that is a problem with journalism right now.

as a consequence of narrowing the frame of the discussion, what they actually do is enable misinformation by not putting good information out there. i would say the emphasis on the horserace coverage and how this affects democrats as a big part. the second part, if you look at the discussion itself, almost all of that conversation has a problem with it. the focus then, what are democrats going to do? that is a question. the foot said -- the flip of this. what you never hear is, what about republicans who have to think about this, who are acting contrary to what the popular is say? when they narrow the frame to politics, they almost concede that republicans are not responsible or shouldn't be engaging in governing. there is an acknowledgment in some way, we can't expect them to do anything about this challenge because they have this agenda. i think that is a problem with narrow coverage around the horserace stuff. host: for viewers to join the

conversation with angelo carusone, free democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independence, (202) 748-8002. one story, on why the process and leaker story might be important to this larger issue. he writes, the court has long occupied a sacred and mythic place in the national consciousness and conducts its work under a veil and depends on the press to fetishize the mistress of the temple. the political -- political exclusive did a service of taking a look at the courts decision making process. the story was warranted because if we had a viable congress, they would've sorted out the legality of the abortion by now -- of abortion by now. views from that angle, the

politico scoop has left an intrusion into the supreme court's sanctified main that it is an investigation into a piece of evolving legislation. guest: jack has the ability to be a contrarian. that is how jack engages. i expect that to be a part of it. i have no problem with politico doing this. that is journalism. that is what we are supposed to do is journalists, get information, validate it, it is a profession and we should respect it and treat it as such. there are a series of standards. it matters. there is a process politico went through, they didn't just throw that out there because they had something. that matters. on the other hand, that is romantic.

i am familiar with the courts. i went to law school. this is not some piece of evolving legislation that is kicked back to congress. this is some law. this is what the courts do. they made a determination about a constitutional right. the same landmark decision. the right has been chipping away at that constitutional protection for quite some time. to pretend and masquerade that this is a federal -- federal legislative issue is inaccurate. that is a problem with the framing. to make it something about democrats versus republicans. row was not decided a year ago. this is been the law for decades. the assessment, how far states can go, this is a reversal of what is considered to be a right. setting aside a leak draft

opinion that is now been confirmed as authentic by the court, your view on leak tapes, our last guest was talking about hidden camera organizations. the role of those investigations and leak tapes like we have seen from the new york times, reporting on kevin mccarthy and his discussions post january 6 with top house republican officials. the role that plays in journalism right now. when i would point out is, we should have a conversation about things reporters are doing with withholding information for a book. that doesn't feel like journalism to me. withholding information that is not timely in order to get it out, that is fine,. during watergate, they published

it because it was newsworthy and timely. the information on these tapes, they are timely. we have seen leaks or reports that are timely, some are new, some they have been sitting on. that is not ok. you shouldn't sit on things that are newsworthy and timely. leaks are a part of journalism as long as there is a process for validating the information, releasing the information. i think we should trust newsrooms when they demonstrate they have standards. they build the public trust. what i would point out is, media matters was born out of this. what the right wing has done, and i think what journalists and news media have failed to do for decades, and that is why they are under assault, there was a coordinated and orchestrated effort beginning in the early 1990's to weaponize the trust that individuals had in journalism. they masquerade like newsrooms

that use the benefit that people have and trust in newsrooms and are -- were publishing things they knew were at fault, or like some groups that pop up now, they do sting operations. they release either heavily edited, absurd versions of what they had. the right-wing echo chamber echoes it. when you dig into it, it turns out they overhyped it or the reports aren't there. that is not journalism. that is a problem. as long as it has standards, people will immediately say, who makes the standards? they do it for plumbers, electricians. i am a critic. that is my job. i have plenty of things to criticize journalists for, even things i agree with them with.

there -- this is a profession. it is not people popping off. the challenge we have, this is the challenge journalists have had, too. because they cared about the trust they have, one of the things that took place as a result of these concert -- disconcerted attack, even though the evidence doesn't back that up, oftentimes, they and r. kelly themselves against the critiques that they are bias or in the tanks. up until recently, had a policy that if they took an op-ed that if they had climate science misinformation, they must provide an op-ed on climate skepticism. they do that to inoculate themselves against the idea that they are in the tank for the liberal climate change agenda. that is not engaging in using

professional standards. editors are not just doing grammar checks. they are saying, that is not an opinion, that is why people gripe about their editors. they are asking hard questions. a take out things that might do well on twitter or social media. they do not have the goods to back it up. sarah -- host: sarah, washington, d.c. guest: if it wasn't for leaks, where we would be with watergate? with the mining of the harbor in nicaragua? a lot of these things need to come out. thank god we have a free and open press. it is in the constitution.

democrats, republicans, deal with it. thank you. guest: i agree. this is why i think -- newsrooms get leaks. a lot of times, they say, we are not publishing it because it is not in the public interest. it is not substantiated enough. the leak is a leak. not all private information is necessarily in the public interest or -- interest. that is why there are completing -- competing outlets. the ones that are able to strike the balance between trust and good reporting will tend to get better scoops, which will get them more attention. as long as they adhere to standards and don't lose credibility and trust, in theory, their reputations will grow. leaks are a part of this.

i think it is good there is a little filter of professionals that are trying to balance out, is this worth the risks of publishing this information? host: doug, independent. good morning. caller: first question, we are a pro-choice country, but individuals have varying opinions about abortion and individuals make that choice. i don't understand the comment that we are a pro-choice country. there are millions of people in this country who would say that abortion is wrong and do not feel we are a "pro-choice"

country. i'm curious what the basis is of that question. guest: we are america. even people that don't like abortion do not like government telling them that they cannot and can do things. that is part of what makes us american, people wearing masks was a challenge. they don't like the idea that people were interfering with them. at its core, there was something unsettling for most americans. guest: we are america. we are definitely a poor -- a pro-choice country. even people who don't like abortion do not like government telling them what they can and cannot do. that is why wearing a mask was

such a challenge because they didn't like the idea of people interfering. at its core, that is something deeply unsettling for abortion. even if they don't agree with abortion personally, they do not like the state would get so deep --. if you know america, you know that. number two, every bit of research data back that up. every single data point demonstrates that other than having modest gun reform, some basic safety checks, access to reproductive health and privacy around that is the second most universally accepted thing. by and large, overwhelmingly, america is a pro-choice company

-- a pro-choice country. host: on april 24 to 28, the question was, do you think the supreme court should uphold roe v. wade or overturn it? over 54%, overturn. just one of those data points you referred to. guest: if you asked the question in different ways, you will get different results but at its core, people want the poseidon -- the privacy and number two, they do not want the government involving themselves that deeply and alive. even people who don't like abortion, what they don't like more is government. there are millions of americans deeply oppose were a variety of reasons. if the media choate -- told that story more and didn't treat it like it was a balance equation,

you would get real feelings and opinions about this. host: good morning. caller: i have spent -- most americans right now --

guest: it was a -- attack on the idea of journalism as a percentage test yes it is key to call him more of a statement. you need some liable good information to have any kind of a functioning society. if you are someone that maybe is

reflexively lying are trying to escort things, you have to go after the check and that data demonstrates at rio fortes that it just reinforces that it was a -- to the college point, if you care about skewing. it was skewing. a consequence of a political strategy. i would say that the national trends are a problem. most people continuously not trusting the media as a whole. people still trust the local media a lot. that is -- a big difference when you go from generic use media any drop-down, there is a deep press relationship. percent of american -- host: 85% of democrats say that they had a lot or some. any 4% in 2021 among --

republicans, some who said they had a lot are some trust, and went down to 66%. guest: that is critical. echoes of the college point. -- echoes to the colors point. -- that goes to the caller's point. -- journalist, i think one of the things you have to ask is why do you keep attacking people and individuals that are saying things that are lying with a specific perspective. you attack clients -- climate scientist that are in the take of -- you attack scientist because you don't like what they are proposing and you see a opportunity for political gain. in this case, when we criticize -- what we say, here's what we

did. here is what we said and here's my problem. the goal is into care the institution down. it is to hold up a mirror and say you messed up. you can fix it in future because bit -- coverage and that may take up a lot of effort but you have to acknowledge where some of the bias is internalized or some of the gaps in professional standards are not in -- there. i think one of the problems that news we -- media has. political reporters and we talked about this with the row and the abortion stuff, they have taken over the dominant lands in which we think about information being distributed and not everything can be taken through a binary political lens. trump presented a irresistible temptation for cable news to take the bake and become combatants in the arena and i do

think that they didn't do any of -- favors not by their reporting but trying to capitalize on the attention that trumka provide engaging in scuffles. it is great fodder and attention into getting into a -- with donald trump or -- online and have him argue but it is not helpful if it seems like it undermines people's trust in why you are doing and saying the things as a reporter. i think they do -- a disservice, not in the coverage itself or -- but the tone -- host: george, republican. good morning. caller: how are you? i admire your organization. it is a king of liars. you do very well. i have a question for you. when you be willing to go on and talk to dr. carson -- tucker

carlsen? i am sure his people are watching this andy will immediately call -- when you be willing to do that? -- guest: the only time foxx whatever happens on is pretty taped. they would not want to get the reality reflected back to them. i think there is a real fear. if i was -- i understand what they are scared because we are able to find a punch. i would not, not because i am not scared. you can come to me and i still wouldn't. the new york times confirm that tucker carlsen is an enabler of white supremacy.

he had done a lot of research to quantify how deeply connected he is to real right supremacist. -- white person prime cysts -- supremacists. they quantify how much of that content he is reflecting on to his programming in the relationship there. i would not do it because i don't want to help foxx and i don't want to pretend that there -- is a legitimate conversation. if he changes his tune, i might consider it. i think fox news is a partisan political operation and the single most destructive force in the country. i don't think anyone should enable it. not an appetizer or an cable company or anyone with any consideration for the representation whatsoever. that applies to democratic leaders and pop -- politicians and corporate leaders. anyone that goes on fox news at this point is enabling true this

information. the world advertising pressure campaigns in -- there's chris -- a perception that don't like something that you get to burn everything down to this -- the ground. they provided a source of power and in a world where we can so much -- we'll -- most of us are commercially -- the news media are commercially general -- driven so the advertisers are the lifeblood of a lot of this. advertisers play a role. if someone makes a mistake, you should fight. that said, it -- if the feature is about, if the goal is to live in misinformed -- mr. -- light and misinformed --lie

misinformed -- that is the business model. i think we should die down the reaction. we are pretty standard. if your business model is to lie or attack. if you commercialize that, the advertisers have a role to play because they are making an investment in millions of dollars to buy ads in there getting pitched. -- and they are getting pitched. if the product is hate and lies i think it is totally reasonable for people to say, wait a minute. i like your brand. we are trying to market to me but doing things to hurt me? i don't like that. when the this is model is uniquely destructive or deceptive and the only way to get them to change to read their

work is to go over their head to the think that is funding them. most newsrooms care about their reputation and you give them evidence that they may not validate all your feelings but they may stop doing it. the business model is destructive and extremely reasonable and important that the advertisers are engaged. not doing anything makes it likely to happen. if there was an advertising campaign to push glenn black dashcam black off the air, alex jones was -- would be on fox news. glenn black -- land that was profitable for the network. he was doing what alec -- alec jones was doing and doing it on foxx. had there not been some line in the sand, there would be more glenn beck's. it would have -- exhilarated.

pres. sec. psaki: democrat -- host: democrat, good morning. caller: your last guest talk about people walking to the capital. i would like to know where i would like to go to see videos of that because i watch those channels and i make my own videos. maybe you can tell me where i could go to research to see it. guest: i am not trying to personalize it but -- they don't have standards. they are ideological. for the caller, if he is interested in finding it, they won't. it does not exist. it is a myth by the echo chamber. you can see descriptions of the video echoed. you can hear at night but you won't see a video because it was not just a casual show.

you can find it matching indoors or you can find videos of cops getting overrun and characterizing it as casually walking in. you will not find the videos of the description that the previous guest described. host: detroit, michigan. anthony. caller: in terms of media criticism, everyone is a critic. it is one of the lowest forms of everything. it seems like your guest can be -- a fan of some this -- maybe he'll look for a job there but any journalist that does not treat -- yulia science wiki leaks, the number one drones in the world. stellar welfare -- record. guest: so, a couple things.

taking raw information and distributing it to the public without going through to protect individuals that could be affected by it, that is not journalism. i don't want to get to get too deep -- deep in the weeds but that is a problem. the problem is position leaks, back in the day before we could build -- align with russia and another partisan player. i want to draw that distinction. going through information that is critical and filtering so that you are not providing and harming things, that is journalism. taking documents and throwing it up there because you have eight agenda, that is not journalism. it could be important but it is not journalism. it cannot be both. you cannot be both a leader and a journalism. leaders can be brave. they could say do something and understand the consequences for

it and we hold them up and say we shouldn't hold a person accountable. that's why whistleblowers are brave. i don't want to muddy the waters but it is a little simplification of the julian assange narrative but i don't want to sort from the reality that leaking is important and whistleblowers can be brave. a lot of what lena sanchez as unlikely as the because he was not hearing to any standard. -- adhering to any standard. caller: thank you for having me on. i will like to ask your guest about what is going on with the hunter biden thing. the media absolutely hit that. they said it was this information. if you are talking about reporters reporting, you could

have investigated that. the fact that the president's son and selling paintings for $500,000, he has no expertise and it is selling more than a monet. there is no investigation about who is paying for that. what are they paying for? are they paying for the painting or influence? host: -- guest: there are two different things. i don't care to investigate that. that is what journalism thus. -- desperate -- does. you should answer those -- as those question. there is no reasonable specialist -- suspicion behind it. that is what journalists do. on the hunter biden story, this is where the competition comes full circle. even people that are advocates for the narrative around hunter

biden, they really seen to mr. genesis. for people that are not in the right wing media, they are referring to the fact that in october of 2020, a new york post article was published at treader decided you cannot distribute the links to, consistent with the policies of leaked information that not verified. right wing went not to about it. let's go back in time. the genesis and the reason why is that the new york post article did not meet any minimum editorial standard. do not provide evidence or verify anything that they were reporting. the spokesperson was a combination of rudy giuliani and steve bannon, who are not credible individuals in the topper of that was the wall street journal had reviewed the same substance and declined it. people in the states think that the wall street journal is

reliable. they said, we cannot posted. -- post it. fox news said they cannot publish this. it doesn't meet our editorial standards. same outlet that has no trouble lying past on the story. it ended up at the post. the way you treat gossett. that is where it ran. the issue there is they did not provide any talk -- editorial guidance or standards. the post is not credible enough to stand on its own authority and it violated its story. it is not like it is suppressed. no one stopping to engage in discussion. the only thing twitter did in don't write sees it as a conspiracy, the one story as it existed, we will not allow it to be attributed because it violates our leaks center. there were claims in there,

conveniently, that had been dropped. it was not like the story itself. it is not like the original story did not hold all the way through. there is a laptop that has been cloned. there has never been a verification or a vet that has other material. my mom told me when you do that, eventually, when you are telling the true, they won't care. you shouldn't lie. the new york subway -- new york post is not a critical outlet. host: you mentioned the role of twitter. i imagine you have thoughts on elon musk buying twitter. guest: it is a nightmare. not because it is a number just another example of a billionaire coming in and barring a lot of money in order to -- borrowing a lot of money in order to buy something he wants for ideological reasons. twitter has a massive influence.

a lot of journalists, influential people in corporate leaders. another part about it, it has influence on other social media platforms. one of the things twitter has done is they have done -- been a vanguard -- people can find about individual substances are -- and post and whether or not they should be taken down. in 2019, twitter came out and said deep thanks -- deepfakes, something that is made up that masquerades as being real, we will not let those exist on our platform. it is too harmful. no social media platform had a policy against that. once they put that in place, all the other outlet took action against deepfakes. a lot of the miss information saw in 2020 have been worse. had these deepfake meals

proliferating around the -- internet. that was a prevention of misinformation. i highlight that twitter has been a little bit of a vanguard it comes to addressing threats. they have played a important role that had a affect on users on other platforms. one thing elon musk will do is not that. separately, he wants to make it a free-for-all. a free-for-all is not free speech. it makes it harder to engage in free speech. the biggest voices have a disproportional -- for selling twitter. it is not fun if the meanest people are privileged on twitter and nothing stopping them from from the campaign. host: let me try to get this caller in plainville -- plainfield, wisconsin. democrat. caller: fox news is the national

employer. i have a question for angelo. the guys you had on before, adam -- adam colette --gilette. angelo -- what can he tell me about the unification church and the funding for aim. guest: it is shadowy. that is the nature of nonprofits. to some is that -- to some extent, that is ok. it is a little bit shadowy. the money matters and in their case, we note the ideology. it is from the senator and they do not do a lot of media research. they just make points and hope

they can shift the narrative and i would rather stick to the facts. host: i wonder your thoughts about ms. form -- guest: c-span is a little different. this is a form and -- forum and i think that is an important part. one thing is, you are feeding -- talking to democrats and republicans and independent. that is part of the left. there are plenty of republicans that are deeply concerned about entrenchment of political power and the concentration of wealth. corporate power, and i think one of the challenges is -- we have these boxes that don't treat us like teams and we have to carry water. i think that compartment went to a desk compartmentalization will not work. i get it. media is not the same as acree in india.

they are credits and we are a watchdog. he claimed to be the same thing but look at the citation. we are an incredible source. i would point out, even conservatives that disagree with us acknowledge that with -- our data is correct. no one says you are wrong. they say you got stuck. we said that but who cares. they never said we lied or made something up or -- the study is wrong. the study does not have the significant think it does. we are different. we are a research our -- operation. there is an idea that we have to treat all things the same and i imagine if i participated by myself, it will not be ok because it was seen right i am biased. -- host: who comes the closest? guest: there are probably some

rogue people on twitter trying to make a strong artless argument. it is rare -- >> now to a hearing on u.s. nuclear redness amid the russia ukraine four. the head of the russian strategic command -- increased urgency to address nuclear deterrence considering the status of this conflict. this is about 90 minutes. ♪ >> american history tv. on c-span2. explore -- exporting people that

tell the american story. at 2 p.m. eastern on the presidency, -- looking back at harry truman. the extraordinary presidency of an ordinary man. at 8 p.m., a college professor teaches a class on the mexican-american war during the late 1840's. the professor -- professor is the offer of manifest ambition. -- author of manifest ambition. as for the american story. watch american history tv saturday on c-span2 and find a full schedule of your program guide or watch online anytime on c-span.org/history. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 creek -- features

leading archer -- authors is cussing their latest books. at 2 p.m. eastern, debate and discussion is on climate change. alex sp -- alex epstein -- i global -- not less. and a book -- an offer with the offer of false alarm. -- author with the author of false alarm. dr. deborah birx provides her firsthand account of the trump administration's response to the covid-19 help cap -- crisis -- health crisis. she's interviewed by the director of the institute of national and global health laws. find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online every time -- anytime on book tv.org.