>> tonight, several 2024 republican presidential candidates are tether in des moines, iowa, to speak at the annual lincoln day dinner hosted by the republican party of iowa. 'll have live coverage starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern on span, c-span now, our free mobile video app, and online at c-span.org. th us this morning. he's the washington bureau chief with realclearpolitics. and the executive editor of the group as well. to remind viewers what is

realclearpolitics. guest: a free website. don't have a payroll yet. you go to it every morning. we aggregate the polls. we aggregate stories, left, right, center. we have original content. that's what i'm overseeing. and original content, my reporters, are supposed to be old school. they tell it straight. gety, you worked at c-span, before that we worked at national journal. and between the two maybe the only news organizations in this country that's still trying to be down the middle. host: this new original content is the "1735 project." what is it? guest: the "1735 project" is -- wrote the first essay. it introduced a project. the project is going to examine what's going on in the news business. why are we considered partisan? what's happened to our business model? what's happened to our journalism model?

what do we do to get back the trust of the american people, and what do we do to succeed? i'm going to examine these things. it's going to be a search for remedies, which is the word that their used when he talked about the goal of american politics. it should not be about accruing power. the point of going into politics is to search for remedies, solutions, we would say. i'm going to try to find some solutions in the process. doing it the rest of this year, process of examining what's going on in american media. host: before we learn more, present those questions that you just asked to our viewers. why is the media considered partisan? what happened to the business model? and what happened to the journalism model? it will be really interesting to see. can you do your own little work here on the set this morning talking to viewers. get some answers to those questions. i want to invite folks to call in. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001.

and independents, 202-748-8002. text us as well, include your first name, city, state, to 202-748-8003. go to facebook.com/c-span. or tweet c-span wj. why "1735 project"? where did the name come from? guest: it's name after the year a printer in new york, of the new york journal, the weekly journal, first newspaper in new york, his name was john peter zanger and he was imprisoned for libel. locked in jail. still managed to put up the newspaper. you wonder why. his wife helped and children helped. also in some sense he was a frontman is the wrong word. he was the printer. he printed the paper physically. the people behind it were louis morris jr., he was the most powerful politician in new york at the time. and their lawyer, james

alexander. they put out this paper. and the paper was critical of the governor of new york, governor crosby. had he been appointed by the king. in those days it was a crime to criticize the appointed representative of the king. and libel was -- truth was not in defense to libel in england. the old star chamber proceeding, the court infamously said, if it's true that makes the libel worse because people are more likely to believe it. libel law in england was considered a way to keep social order. prevent duels and riots. people thinking less of the king. in the colonies that wasn't going to fly. so these guys printed this newspaper very critical of the governor. john peter was locked in jail. 1735 is when his trial came. and a sensational trial t would make a great movie.

acquitted by a jury. essentially nullified the english libel law. his lawyer, immigrant from scotland, alexander -- andrew hamilton, argued that you couldn't be free. free was -- people couldn't be free if they couldn't criticize their elected representatives. inkland was rule by parliament than the king. people bought the logic here. the judge disbarred his lawyer, on the spot, for arguing that in the trial. they went and got this other lawyer. he came up from philadelphia and said, no. we have to be able -- he compared it to murder. here's the murder when you present a defense, the fact that there is a dead body donne mean -- doesn't mean there is a murder. he said we will prove the truth. they didn't prove that the things they wrote about governor

crosby were true. it was the principle established that if you lived -- people need freedom of the press. that was where it comes from. the second part is that, this part people forget, this is what i'm going to focus on. we are obligated as journalists to pursue the truth. host: when 34%, according to the gallup poll, of americans trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly, and that is essentially unchanged from last year and just two points higher than the lowest the gallup has recorded. what's going on? guest: here's the real problem with that number. it's bad enough, but if you just poll democrats, gallup did, gallup broke out democrats in their poll, the numbers support of the press is high. about 70%. either a lot of confidence or complete confidence. that's unchanged since nixon was president. what's happened is the numbers have cratered among independents

and especially among republicans. 27% of independents press is giving to them straight. half the number of republicans. there is a partisan divide. you want to say new, it's been growing since -- those numbers -- since bill clinton left office, george w. bush came in. it's been increasing steadily. as you said, in this era it's almost a dichotomy. so one half of the electric things we are getting the news straight. the other half doesn't. host: you'll likely hear from independents and republicans say because the mainstream media is liberal. and that's why they are seeking out other conservative sources because they are getting what they perceive as the whole story. guest: i get that. we have been liberal for a long time. but when -- host: who is we? guest: the mainstream press. not you and me personally,

greta. but when bill clinton ran for president the first time, there was a poll, i forget who did it, 89% of the people covering bill clinton voted for bill clinton. over that campaign. he got 43% of the vote. that means we were more twice as liberal as the american people. not a highly scientific poll. the point is, even when journalists identify as democrats, identify as liberals, there was an ethos in the news business to tell it straight. to try to be objective. people -- curves complained about that at the time. curves complained about that at the time. the intent is important. political scientist vs. been saying on college campus for years, nobody is perfectly objective. fine. but you try. and the question now is whether we are still trying. host: let's get to calls and see

what people say. dave in california, independent. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. c-span is probably about the only news source that i respect anymore. a democracy depends on a unbiased, honest news media to provide them with complete information so people can make informed decisions and informed choices at the pal lot box -- bat lot box -- ballot box. what we have now is a bias, disruptness, corruptness in the news media to the point they are willing to conceal corruption if by exposing that corruption it jeopardizings their political atkpwepbd -- jeopardizes the political agenda. how they hid the hunter biden laptop. i watched a video of joe biden

bragging to members of the council of foreign relations how he had gotten an investigator that was investigating corruption at the ukrainian gas company, that was paying his son upwards of $50,000 a month for essentially doing nothing, bragging how he had gotten the guy fired. he said if this guy isn't fired by the time i get on my plane in six hours, you are getting your $1 billion aid package. they fired the guy. and the media has shown no interest in this. they have shown no interest in finding out what these other foreign companies, including companies in russia and china, got in return for millions of dollars paid to hunter biden. host: dave, i think we heard your point. carl cannon? guest: that's a good illustration of the problem. the hunteraptop story was suppressed.

sad, historic fact. it was -- the "new york post" broke the story. what happened there after that was that 51 members of the -- former members of the intelligence committee signed it, a letter, saying it had all the earm of russian disinformation, which was untrue. it didn't have the earmarks of russian disinformation. but secondly, this was a partisan talking point apparently cooked up in the biden campaign. and it was -- that was covered. it seemed to give permission to kind of reporters this caller is talking about. agenda driven reporters. reporters who didn't want trump elected and wanted biden elected to ignore the story. compounding that problem, twitter apparently under pressure from the f.b.i., we finally learned, suppressed the "new york post." the caller is right. this is why there is a partisan

gap. it's understandable to me why a reporter wouldn't want donald trump re-elected. but in the old days we would -- we follow the story wherever it went. and hope for the best. trust the american people to get it right. there is a perception, this caller is one of them, to me it's a reasonable perception, we no longer do that. host: pensacola, florida, rich is there. democratic caller. caller: having been working for 30 years working for the gannett company, i took a company buyout in 2012. what i have seen changing is the lack of copy editing to where in the past everything was fact checked. we made sure that reporters told both sides of the story. those days are gone. the other thing is, opinion. papers clearly had opinion pages marked. now you have your fox news, etc., etc.

they are all opinion shows. and the average reader really can't tell the difference between opinion and news. thank you. guest: i couldn't say that better myself. the copy editing, we haven't gotten into this yet. the business model cratered. everybody knows this. newspapers used to be -- greta, i worked for the san jose mercury news for 10 years. that paper probably made $75 million in clear profit every year i was there. so you can do the math. now it's a building, the newsroom's gone. there were 350 reporters, editors. big vibrant paper. had two people in washington. i was one. one in tokyo and mexico. our paper got rid of ferdinand march coast. we were a robust paper. what happened the subscriptions

disappeared. and now we can't even afford copy editors. it's an existential crisis. people have written about it. margaret sullivan, who worked at the near times -- "new york times," she's continued to follow this. they are called news deserts. the office now is half a dozen people. they are heroic. they work hard. probably large than that. a small office in downtown. the newsroom is gone. papers all over country are like this. what's really worse is the demise of weekly newspapers in the small communities. people have written about that. nancy gibbs wrote a piece, former editor of times, how these -- whole counties without newspapers. in states where they have two senators, 900,000 people, and nobody is covering anybody. the new jersey delegation is uncovered now in washington. there is not one person here in

washington has to pay attention to the new jersey delegation. david simon, the writer i worked, he was at the "baltimore sun" when i covered the white house for the "sun" he wrote the wire. i was in a seminar with him on the "boston globe" story since the pryce -- priest, he said there's never been a better time to be a corrupt politician in america. that's a sad statement. true. but what this gentleman talking about that worked for gannett, we can't afford copy editors at the newspapers. a new business model has to come. we can't handle democracy if nobody is covering politicians and fairly. host: what was the old business model? guest: the old business model was monopolies. didn't have competition. if you wanted to find out what was going on in that city you had to take the san jose mercury news. moreover, if you wanted to do

anything, a transaction, sell a bicycle, apply for a job, list your house had you to write these classified ads. didn't cost much. $15, $20. but there were thousands in the paper, 365 days a year. it was a printing press to make money. i realize something was amiss several years ago. i was walking in san francisco. the town where i was born. my friends -- the city where i was born. my friend, steve proctor, he worked at the sun together. he was the managing editor at the "san francisco chronicle." he pointed up the he hill and said craig lives up there. and i said who is craig newmar? you don't know. he's the guy who has taken $50 million out in the newspapers in the ad for the last five years. that's great. and the guy doesn't even charge for it. there was a building, maybe the whole journalism department at

columbia is named after him. if he hadn't done it, someone else would have. but this -- with the click of a mouse you can list or sell anything in the country for free, that crippled newspapers. host: what's the news business model? technology is not going away. guest: there are different models being developed. one of them is the partisan model. that's one business model. that was roger's big idea. fox says, fox news, i think they are in this building here, they famously said when they started we are going to be fair and balanced. what they meant really was, i don't go around bashing them, they are going to be fair because they'll provide an alternative. the whole rest of the media is liberal, we are going to provide the balance.

inside this company they add add joke that say, they were a niche market. half the country. so there was a feeling that people -- not everybody was being served. in those days in the 1990's this give raise to rush limbaugh and his many imitators. these conservative drumbeat hard right stuff, the idea was the mainstream media had sort of sraored -- veered this way. but when the business model goes, then -- it's harder. that's one model. partisan. nonprofit is another. propublica, the investigative site has done great work. none of these models are perfect. the problem there is that original seed money given by liberals. republicanna tends to investigate not liberals or the other side. i know some of the journalists who work there. they are principled people. at the end of the day there is pressure when you get money from

one side. another model is the nonprofit model. we are in transition. i don't have a good answer. if i did i would be rich. but that's where i'm going to be exploring in this series as we go forward. host: ramon in oklahoma city, republican. ramon. caller: yes. host: your turn. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: the origins of covid ever come out? or ol stiffer stone to make a movie about it for the truth to come out. host: the covid story. guest: the oliver stone reference. oliver stone made a movie, the c.i.a. killed jack kennedy. i don't believe that. that's a perfect illustration. if you don't just go with the facts, if you don't just shed light on a topic, conspiracy

theories will develop n this case -- develop. in this case, the covid story is another one that conservatives point to, rightly, to show the weaknesses in the modern press. the weakness is when you are interested in results or agenda instead of the facts. anthony fauci, who i covered in the old days when aids was a story. i had a great deal of respect and regard for him. the way he handled the aids crisis and growth he showed. and he stood up to both sides. but in this case when he lost credibility relatively early in the process when he told people you don't need a mask. and then the government told you you damn sure do. and you bert wear one or can't come in our building. it came out he was afraid people would hoard masks. so he said that. you can say it was a light lie. people have written books about

lying. that's not a venal lie. it undermined his credibility. so then when people started saying, if you think that this virus escaped from the wuhan lab, a lab of virology, it's the obvious thing. you can't even mention that or you are a racist and conspiracy theorist. when reporters said that, journalists, supposedly straight news journalists, not opinion, when they said that, as it's come out, it's uncertain where it came. most people think that's a possibility, maybe a probability. including now the federal government of the united states think that's the most likely scenario. but for two years you were denounced for saying that. people were -- platforms used an unfortunate word of our modern time were saying, it was the most obvious theory.

again, that cost us in the media, mainstream media. i say yes. i was born and raised in the newspapers. my dad worked for the "washington post." i worked in newsrooms. i'm in the media writ large. host: peter in lakeland, florida, independent. you're next, peter. caller: hey, thank you for having caller line. i think i might give you some great examples. i wanted to know what number was before there was total failure in the media? think about this call. "the new york times" and "washington post" still have pulitzer surprises for the lies that they printed about the russian lie and trump. they got pew hitsers. they haven't even given them up. we are wondering why nobody trusts the media. look at all your news sources. tell me one that ever came out against the war. we have iraq as weapons of mass destruction. say anything else you get

censored. you say something about aoeufr phebg continue and you could cost pfizer billions of dollars and get deplatformed. this is what it is. the money's changed. the oligarchs have a tight noose around everybody's head. we don't have a free media. we have a corporate media. media that billionaires launched. host: take that point. guest: well, he mentioned iraq war. actually there was a very robust debate in this country. i am on capitol hill about the -- on capitol hill about the iraq war. host: after we went to war? guest: before. there were votes. george w. bush put it not just the u.n. to the house and senate. there was narrow votes. he didn't listen, the president didn't listen to ted kennedy. don't go there. there was a thought among principled democrats that george w. bush was asking them -- giving them a choice they couldn't win on. that they either had to cripple

a president with a country that was attacked or not go to war. the media was on all sides of that question. later turned against the war, as the american people did. that's actually an example. that's 20 years ago. march of 2003. fast forward to today. the media, you don't have those internal debates you had. you don't have -- you have that news organization is pro-biden. pro-trim-u trump. that's how the old party system was. zanger was partisan press. in the 19th century it was the same way. true. you couldn't get the true everywhere. you could get if you went to enough sources. that's the theory. that still holds. except that what we know is people don't go to multiple sources. they tend to want their views

re-enforced. facebook, social media. there are algorithms that play into that prejudice. that prey on your fears. go to your computer and do a search you'll see what comes up. the news media is being balkanized and so is the american public opinion. a poll of democrats, i guess a majority would believe that hunter laptop, was russian disinformation. they gone to check this or gone to other sources. likewise, look at the surprising number of republicans. mainstream, grassroots republicans, tens of millions of them, who believe the things trump said about the election. he cited no evidence. they believe it because they haven't gone to other sources. the problem with having a balkanized news media is people tend to get a parking space and stay there instead of go through the bizarre marketplace of "wall

street journal," "new york post" this day, and "new york times," that online. people don't do that as much as they should. most people don't do it at all. host: william is in ohio. democratic caller. miamisburg, ohio. caller: hi, greta. nice to talk to you again. i miss the old 88-year-old tennessean. like i said before, any time that you got crooks, politicians and a government what more do you expect? it's not only in federal. it's in the states. it's a shame. look at our great speaker of the house here in ohio. took $64 million. his associate, mr. bogus, who is in charge of the republican party, he was a part of it. so he's got seven y